Court Opinion

ID: 9553317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:27:44.801986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:30:46.582601
License: Public Domain

HALLEY, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
The majority opinion stresses the right ■of the plaintiff to dismiss a civil action under the provisions of Title 12 § 684, O.S. 1961. The section reads:
“A plaintiff may, on the payment of costs and without an order of court, dismiss any civil action brought by him at any time before, a petition of intervention or answer praying for affirmative relief against him is filed in the action. * * * ” '
I do not question the right of the plaintiff to dismiss a civil action under the above section. I believe that § 684, supra, must be construed with other sections of our statutes. If another section of our statute imposes certain obligations on the plaintiff as conditions for the dismissal of the action the plaintiff must comply with these conditions. Title 42 § 176, O.S.1961, reads:
“In an action brought to enforce any lien the party for whom judgment is rendered shall be entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court, which shall be taxed as costs in the action.”
In upholding the constitutionality of Section 176, supra, this court in Keaton v. Branch, 104 Okl. 287, 231 P. 289, stressed the fact that the statute was constitutional because it “provides for the allowance of a reasonable attorney fee to the prevailing party in lien foreclosure cases.”
This court said:
“ * * * This section provides for the allowance of a reasonable attorney fee to the prevailing party in lien foreclosure cases. It is contended that the section referred to contravenes section 1, art. 2, and section 6, art. 2, of the Constitution of state of Oklahoma. Such contention cannot be upheld. This section of the statute as fully protects the defendants for their reasonable attorney fee as it does the plaintiffs in lien foreclosure cases. Both the plaintiffs and defendants are afforded equal protection of the law for the attorney fee. * * *”
Applying the principles declared in Keaton v. Branch, supra, to the facts in the present case the defendant does not secure equal protection in the matter of attorney’s fee if the statute is construed in accordance with the majority opinion. In the present case the plaintiff filed suit to foreclose a materialmen’s lien. The defendants were *304required to employ attorneys to protect their interests. These attorneys prepared and filed on behalf of the defendants an affirmative defense. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case. When the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case as to the defendants after the issues were made up the defendants became “the prevailing parties” within the purview of section 176, supra. To hold otherwise would not be in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the section. Again referring to Keaton v. Branch, supra, this court said, “ ‡ * * this section of the statute as fully protects the defendants for their reasonable attorney fee as it does the plaintiffs in lien foreclosure cases.” The defendants are not equally protected in regard to their attorney’s fees if they are deprived of the right to collect them by the voluntary dismissal of the action by the plaintiff. The fact that the case was dismissed and the attorneys were not required to try the case is a factor to be considered by the court in its discretion in determining the propriety of allowing attorneys’ fees and also the amount of the fee but should not be considered as an absolute bar to the allowance of a fee if justified under the circumstances presented.
In Chaffin Bros. Lumber Co. v. White, 184 Okl. 253, 86 P.2d 982, the defendant interposed the defense of a “Turn-Key” job the defense being practically the same as the defense of the defendants Blacks in the present case. The case was tried on the issues and the defendant sustained the defense. His attorneys were allowed an attorney’s fee. This court said:
“In an action to foreclose a lien on real estate where the defendants, owners of the premises, are the prevailing parties it is not error for the court to allow said owners a reasonable attorney fee in such proceeding.”
The difference between the facts in Chaffin Bros. Lumber Co. v. White, supra, and those in present case is that in Chaffin the defense was tried on its merits while in the present case the attorneys after interposing the defense, were deprived of the opportunity to present it by the voluntary dismissal of the plaintiff.
The majority opinion stresses the case of Allied Paint Mfg. Co. v. Banes, 208 Okl. 119, 253 P.2d 826, in support of the contention that the court was without authority to allow the defendants an attorney fee after the plaintiff had dismissed its action against them. In the case cited, plaintiff filed four suits against several defendants seeking to foreclose materialmen’s liens. The defendants filed answers stating affirmative defenses. At the trial plaintiff moved to dismiss the actions. Defendants resisted the motions to dismiss and they were denied. At the trial of the case on its merits the court sustained the motions of the defendants for judgment and allowed an attorney’s fee for the defense attorney in each case. This court reversed the cases with directions to sustain the motions of the plaintiff to dismiss and vacate the order allowing attorney fees.
I have carefully reviewed the case of Allied Paint Mfg. Co. v. Banes, supra, and reluctantly reach the conclusion that the case is not in harmony with the intent and purpose of section 176, supra, in providing for the allowance of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in actions seeking the foreclosure of materialmen’s liens. Keaton v. Branch and Chaffin Bros. Lumber Co. v. White, supra.
I recommend the overruling of Allied Paint Mfg. Co. v. Banes, supra. “Precedents, like the ambition which Brutus attributed to Caesar, 'should be made of sterner stuff’.” Riley v. Riley (Fla.App.), 131 So.2d 491.
I respectfully dissent.