Opinion ID: 2377073
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the trial court erred when it overturned the jury verdict with regard to branson's claim for slander of title, but it correctly overturned the jury verdict with regard to branson's claim for breach of fiduciary duty

Text: ¶ 75 The availability of attorney fees as special damages in a claim for slander of title required the trial court to sustain the jury's verdict with regard to Branson's slander of title claim. But because attorney fees are not available as special damages in a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the trial court correctly granted JNOV with regard to that claim. As discussed, the jury's verdicts on each of these claims follow the same pattern: first, the jury declares that Branson has prevailed on his claims; then the jury enumerates Branson's damages amount at $0; then the jury indicates that Marvin should be required to pay Branson's attorney fees. ¶ 76 Our resolution of this issue is inextricably linked with the standard of review we employ in reviewing a court's decision to overturn a jury verdict. Where the possibility of inconsistency in jury interrogatories or special verdicts exists, [we] will not presume inconsistency; rather, [we] will seek to reconcile the answers if possible. [54] Accordingly, a jury's verdict will be sustained, even in the face of possible inconsistency, if the judgment can be read harmoniously. [55] Given this standard of review, the question for this court is whether it is reasonable to construe the jury's verdict with regard to these claims in a manner that gives effect to all of the jury's responses on the special verdict form. ¶ 77 To answer this question, we must examine the role of attorney fees in cases of slander of title and breach of fiduciary duty. The general rule for attorney fees in tort cases is that the parties are each responsible for their own fees. [56] Under this rule, commonly referred to as the American Rule, the prevailing party may generally only recover fees if a statutory or contractual provision entitles that party to such an award. [57] An important corollary to this rule is that the fees employed to prove that one has suffered as the result of a tort may not be counted as a component of the damages. Were it otherwise, all attorney fees would be characterized as damages, and the general rule would cease to have any effect. ¶ 78 The parties dispute the role of attorney fees as special damages. Branson argues that attorney fees may form the basis of a damages award in cases of slander of title and breach of fiduciary duty. Marvin disagrees as to both types of claim. We conclude that Branson is correct with regard to his claim of slander of title, but that he has incorrectly interpreted our cases with regard to attorney fees in claims for breach of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's grant of JNOV with regard only to the claim for slander of title.