Opinion ID: 1363069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: supreme court costs

Text: A portion of the Salzwedels' fee award represents costs incurred on petitions for review to this court. [3] The state argues that the superior court had no jurisdiction to award fees for proceedings before the supreme court. The supreme court, according to the state, awards fees and costs arising from supreme court proceedings. It makes those awards pursuant to Appellate Rule 29: Costs. (a) Dismissal or Denial. If an appeal is dismissed or petition denied by this court, costs shall not be allowed to the appellee or respondent, unless otherwise ordered by the court. (b) Affirmance of Judgment. In all cases of affirmance of a judgment or any order or decision of the superior court, costs shall be allowed to the appellee or respondent unless otherwise ordered by the court. (c) Reversal of Judgment or Order. In cases of reversal by this court of any judgment, order or decision of the superior court, costs shall be allowed the appellant or petitioner, ... unless otherwise ordered by the court. (d) Attorney's Fees. Where costs are allowed in this court, attorney's fees may also be allowed in an amount to be determined by the court. If the court determines that an appeal or cross-appeal is frivolous or that it has been brought simply for purposes of delay, actual attorney's fees may be awarded to the appellee or cross-appellee. The Salzwedels argue that Civil Rule 72(k) governs fee awards for all condemnation-related proceedings, including appeals to the supreme court. It provides: Costs. Costs and attorney's fees incurred by the defendant shall not be assessed against the plaintiff, unless: (1) the taking of the property is denied, or (2) the award of the court was at least ten (10) percent larger than the amount deposited by the condemning authority or the allowance of the master from which an appeal was taken, or (3) the action was dismissed under the provisions of subdivision (i) of this rule, or (4) allowance of costs and attorney's fees appears necessary to achieve a just and adequate compensation of the owner. Attorney's fees allowed under this subdivision shall be commensurate with time committed by the attorney to the case throughout the entire proceedings. [emphasis added] The Salzwedels argue that the phrase throughout the entire proceedings permits the superior court to award costs for condemnation-related supreme court petitions or appeals. We do not agree. The phrase throughout the entire proceedings in Civil Rule 72(k) refers to all phases of the proceedings in Civil Rule 72(k) refers to all phases of the proceedings before the superior court. It does not mean proceedings before the supreme court. Appellate Rules govern appellate proceedings. In Continental Insurance Co. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 552 P.2d 1122, 1127 (Alaska 1976), we held that it was error for the superior court to award fees for a supreme court appeal: [4] Article IV, Section 15 of the Alaska Constitution provides in part that the Supreme Court shall ... make and promulgate rules governing practice and procedure in civil and criminal cases in all courts. Pursuant to this constitutional grant, this court promulgated Rule 29, Appellate Rules, which vests the discretion to determine costs and attorney's fees pertaining to appeals in this court. In short, by rule in general, this court has the authority to award costs in connection with an appeal to the Supreme Court of Alaska. We acknowledge the special status of condemnees, City of Anchorage v. Scavenius, 539 P.2d 1169, 1175 (Alaska 1975), as persons who are in court merely because the government happens to need their property for a public purpose. Appellate Rule 29 can accommodate that special status. It provides for fees to successful appellants or petitioners, and thus a successful property owner will receive fees. The rule also permits the court to disallow fees for successful petitioners or appellants, and thus this court could disallow costs to a successful government petitioner or appellant. [5] If the property owner unsuccessfully petitions or appeals, as here, the rule permits this court to award fees. [6] Thus, the superior court was without jurisdiction to award the Salzwedels fees for supreme court proceedings. [7]