Court Opinion

ID: 9775189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:47:54.699991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:22.579471
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
$19 I concur in the lead opinion except its treatment of attorney fees. With respect to that part of the opinion, I dissent. And because Judge Roth has concurred in my opinion, this opinion-not the lead opinion-represents the opinion of the court as concerns attorney fees.
T20 Our concern may be simply stated. The district court awarded Bud Bailey the maximum amount permitted by our prior opinion. And it awarded essentially the entire amount sought by Bud Bailey in its fee application. Concerned that the trial court might have used an improper sanction-oriented approach in fixing the bank's basic liability, we have vacated that award and remanded for reconsideration. Because the basic award is being reconsidered, it makes sense to us for the trial court to likewise reconsider the award of attorney fees-if for no other reason than to ensure that the fee award is untainted by the same sanction-based approach that prompts us to vacate the judgment imposed.1
{21 Accordingly, on remand, the trial court will also reconsider the amount of attorney fees properly to be awarded against the Bank.
«22 I CONCUR: STEPHEN L. ROTH, Judge.

. Contrary to the lead opinion's criticism, we make no "assumption that the [fee] award was tainted by the trial court's erroneous application of rule 64D in assessing damages." Supra T 17. We merely recognize the possibility, and believe the trial court should have the opportunity to reconsider the fee award as it reconsiders the damages award.