Court Opinion

ID: 9633614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:54:15.077819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:38.584589
License: Public Domain

STOWERS, Justice, dissenting. I concur in the result but dissent in part. We have iterated many times that we will not disturb the decision of the trial court absent a showing of abuse. Manzanares v. Lerner’s, Inc., 102 N.M. 391, 393, 696 P.2d 479, 481 (1985); Gallegos v. Duke City Lumber Co., 87 N.M. 404, 407, 534 P.2d 1116, 1119 (Ct.App.1975). In the instant case the trial court did abuse its discretion and we properly reviewed the case to correct this abuse. The standard of review was applied and it worked. The majority now wants to limit the discretion of the trial court in all future cases by setting forth even more specific guidelines for determining attorney fees. We have repeatedly said we will not so limit the trial court’s discretion. I strongly favor the right of the trial court to exercise its discretion and any unwarranted intrusion or curtailment of this discretion is neither necessary nor justifiable. We have already developed numerous criteria to assist the trial judge in establishing reasonable attorney fees. Fryar v. Johnsen, 93 N.M. 485, 487-88, 601 P.2d 718, 720-21 (1979); see also Woodson v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 102 N.M. 333, 338-39, 695 P.2d 483, 488-89 (1985); NMSA 1978, § 52-1-54 (Repl.Pamp.1987). I therefore dissent from that portion of the opinion.