Opinion ID: 880708
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Smiths' Cross-Appeal

Text: Did the District Court err in fixing the amount of attorney's fees and costs awarded to the Smiths? The District Court's award of attorney's fees and costs is discussed in the court's Finding of Fact number 16, which states in part: Smiths also seek attorney fees and costs for the entire lawsuit. However, when the court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs it directed each side to pay its own fees and costs to that time, and now finds that such ruling was fair and equitable, and reaffirms it. However, as to additional time plaintiffs' counsel has spent on various motions, briefs, damage issues and trial, the court finds plaintiffs are entitled to recover the same pursuant to written provision of the buy/sell agreement ... and plaintiffs are further entitled to allowable costs since summary judgment of $165.20... Said costs are as follows: George Hamilton deposition $130.20; Witness fee $10.00; Judgment fee $25.00. The Smiths do not contest the award of attorney's fees from the time of partial summary judgment, but argue that attorney's fees incurred prior to such time should be awarded. The buy/sell agreement contains an attorney's fee provision which states: In any action brought by the Buyer or the Seller to enforce any of the terms of this agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to such reasonable attorney fees as the court or arbitrator shall determine just. The fixing of attorney's fees is largely within the discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion. In Re Marriage of Milanovich (1985), 215 Mont. 367, 370-71, 697 P.2d 927, 929. The record contains substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the District Court concerning attorney's fees. We find no abuse of discretion. The District Court awarded the Smiths costs from the time of partial summary judgment in the amount of $165.20. The total costs claimed by the Smiths are $345.20. Section 25-10-101(5), MCA, provides that Costs are allowed, of course, to the plaintiff upon a judgment in his favor ... in an action which involves the title or possession or right of possession of real estate ... Under § 25-10-101, MCA, allowable costs are recoverable by the plaintiff upon timely application. See, Medhus v. Dutter (1979), 184 Mont. 437, 447, 603 P.2d 669, 674; State v. Cronin (1978), 179 Mont. 481, 491, 587 P.2d 395, 401. We therefore remand for determination of allowable costs incurred prior to the time of partial summary judgment. Are the Smiths entitled to attorney's fees and costs on appeal? The District Court made numerous findings regarding the assessment of attorney's fees and costs concluding that if the Johnsons' appeal is unsuccessful they should be subject to assessment of the Smiths' costs and attorney's fees in defending such appeal. This Court has previously held that [w]here an award of attorneys' fees is based on a contract, the award includes attorneys' fees generated on appeal. Lauderdale v. Grauman (1986), 223 Mont. 357, 359, 725 P.2d 1199, 1200. In regard to costs on appeal, such are automatically awarded to the successful party under Rule 33, M.R.App.P. Walker v. Warner (1987), 228 Mont. 162, 167, 740 P.2d 1147, 1150. We find that, as the prevailing party on appeal, the Smiths are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Should sanctions be imposed against the Johnsons pursuant to Rule 32, M.R. App.P., for bringing this appeal? The Smiths contend they are entitled to an additional award of damages, arguing that the Johnsons' appeal on the issue of specific performance is frivolous. Rule 32, M.R.App.P., provides: If the supreme court is satisfied from the record and the presentation of the appeal in a civil case that the same was taken without substantial or reasonable grounds, such damages may be assessed on determination thereof as under the circumstances are deemed proper. Where a reasonable ground for appeal exists, sanctions or damages are not appropriate under Rule 32, M.R.App.P. Searight v. Cimino (1988), 230 Mont. 96, 103-04, 748 P.2d 948, 952; Erdman v. C & C Sales, Inc. (1978), 176 Mont. 177, 184, 577 P.2d 55, 59. In the present case, the question of whether the District Court properly granted partial summary judgment was reasonably in issue. We find no basis for imposing sanctions against the Johnsons. We affirm and remand for determination of reasonable attorney's fees and costs on appeal and for determination of allowable costs pursuant to § 25-10-101(5), MCA. SHEEHY, HUNT, McDONOUGH and WEBER, JJ., concur.