Opinion ID: 2606154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: azer is entitled to an award of a reasonable attorney's fee from brokers pursuant to hrs sec. 607-17, inasmuch as brokers' breach of fiduciary duty derived from a breach of their contractual duty of diligence imposed in the listing agreement.

Text: When they entered into the listing agreement, Brokers agreed that if either party to the contract commenced any litigation to enforce the terms of the agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive a reasonable attorney's fee from the other party... . As the majority recognizes, HRS Sec. 607-17 authorizes the awarding of a reasonable attorney's fee when provided for in a written contract. Moreover, this court has recognized for almost seventeen years that in reality, a claim of injury resulting from ... professional incompetence ... is actionable under theories which are an amalgam of both tort and contract. Higa v. Mirikitani, supra, 55 Haw. at 172, 517 P.2d at 5. Accordingly, the answer to the question whether the damage award to Azer, based on his breach of fiduciary duty claim against Brokers, arises out of any litigation to enforce the terms of the listing agreement determines whether Azer is entitled to recover a reasonable attorney's fee from Brokers in this case. In my view, the majority's conclusion that [t]he enforcement of the listing agreement was not at issue in this case, see opinion of the court, at 857, is unduly facile. Specifically, it ignores the inescapable fact that, in finding in favor of Azer on his breach of fiduciary duty claim against Brokers, the jury must of necessity have found as a fact that Brokers breached their express, written, contractual duty diligently to pursue the procurement of a tenant by misrepresenting, in their negotiations with Profit, the amount of allocable parking space available on the property. None of the parties to this case disputes that the listing agreement created a fiduciary relationship between Brokers and Azer. TR, 7/13/87, at 38-39. It should therefore go without saying that actions for breach of fiduciary duty sound in contract. Bibo v. Jeffrey's Restaurant, 770 P.2d 290, 296 (Alaska 1989); Restatement (Second) of Agency, introductory note to chapter 13, Secs. 400, 401, and comment a to Sec. 401; see also, Higa v. Mirikitani, supra . Moreover, the parties do not dispute that, as a fiduciary, Brokers owed Azer an obligation of the utmost faith, integrity, honesty, and loyalty in connection with Brokers' performance of their duties pursuant to the listing agreement. (Emphasis added.) TR, 7/13/87, at 34. Indeed, the duty of diligence that Brokers' voluntarily undertook is the quintessential expression of that obligation. Such utmost or extraordinary diligence has been defined as [t]hat extreme measure of care and caution which persons of unusual prudence and circumspection use for securing and preserving their own property or rights. Black's Law Dictionary 411 (5th ed. 1979). It therefore ineluctably follows that when a duty, fiduciary or otherwise, arises out of a contract, a breach of that duty is a breach of the contract. See generally, Schulz v. Honsador, Inc., 67 Haw. 433, 437, 690 P.2d 279, 282 (1984); Au v. Au, 63 Haw. 210, 219, 626 P.2d 173, 180 (1981); Higa v. Mirikitani, supra ; see also Restatement (Second) of Agency, introductory note to chapter 13, Secs. 400, 401, and comment a to Sec. 401, supra. Brokers' suggestion, at 3 of their Supplemental Brief, May 10, 1990, that although Azer's breach of fiduciary claim may be based on the listing agreement, ... he [is nevertheless] not seek[ing] enforcement of the agreement, is nothing short of disingenuous. In effect, Brokers are arguing that as long as they in fact produced a tenant for Azer pursuant to the listing agreement, they could not possibly have breached their fiduciary obligation of diligent pursuit. It is inconceivable to me that if, in the manner of Don Vito Corleone, Brokers had procured Profit as a tenant by assuring its representatives that Brokers would have their brains or their signatures on the Profit lease, or if Brokers had intentionally misrepresented the true amount of allocable parking space available, anyone would deny that Brokers had breached their fiduciary duty of diligent pursuit. Brokers' breach under the circumstances of this case compels no different conclusion. By agreeing diligently to pursue a tenant for Azer, Brokers contractually bound themselves to a standard of care. Brokers' failure to perform according to that standard caused Azer's damages. If that is not a breach of contract, then nothing is. Azer is entitled by HRS Sec. 607-17 to an award of a reasonable attorney's fee from Brokers.