Court Opinion

ID: 9628325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:16:58.741556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:04.048188
License: Public Domain

ORDER ON REHEARING SOSA, Chief Justice. Appellant sought and was granted a rehearing on the question of her entitlement to costs and attorney’s fees for services rendered by her attorneys at the trial on remand and on the two appeals in this case. We did not award attorney’s fees in the first appeal, though we did award costs in favor of Ms. Morris. The decision to award costs on appeal is within the discretion of this Court, § 39-3-30, N.M.S.A. 1978, and is final.  The trial court did not award attorney’s fees for the hearing on remand. The determination of whether or not attorney’s fees should be awarded is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Corliss v. Corliss, 89 N.M. 235, 549 P.2d 1070 (1976). We do not believe that the court abused its discretion. Nor do we believe that an effective presentation of Ms. Morris’ case is dependent upon an award of attorney’s fees as was the case in Burnside v. Burnside, 85 N.M. 517, 514 P.2d 36 (1973).  Section 39-3-30, N.M.S.A. 1978 provides that the prevailing party shall recover costs against the other party unless good cause is shown. The court did not award costs for the hearing on remand. In our review of the record, we have not found good cause for the court’s decision not to award costs for the second trial. The costs of that hearing, therefore, should be assessed against Mr. Spingola. We will treat the fees and costs of the second appeal in the same manner as the first. Each party shall bear their own attorney’s fees incurred in the second appeal, costs having already been assessed. IT IS SO ORDERED. EASLEY and FELTER, JJ., concur.