Court Opinion

ID: 9546925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:38:03.867418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:02.194930
License: Public Domain

RABINO WITZ, Chief Justice,
dissenting in part.
I agree with the court’s holding that Administrative Rule 7(c) is inapplicable to witness costs in divorce cases. My disagreement is with the court’s holding that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Virginia Hilliker $5,000 of the $9,200 she incurred for accountant expert witnesses’ fees. Given Virginia’s status of an “economically less advantaged divorce litigant,” and the reason for the *1207duplication of services by accountants1 (Ben’s refusal to agree to a continuance upon the death of Virginia’s accountant’s father which necessitated the hiring of a substitute accountant — expert witness), I conclude that the superior court abused its discretion in failing to award the full $9,200 in claimed reasonable and necessary accounting fees.

. In regard to Virginia's "tactical” request to Michael Morgan that he not prepare until after the deposition was taken, the superior court suggested that there was an innocent motive for this instruction. The trial court viewed the instruction as an attempt by Virginia to limit her costs until litigation was inevitable.