Court Opinion

ID: 9531403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:10:34.333748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:26.480468
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion on Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
Appellees filed a motion for rehearing— not as to the basic grounds of the decision, but attacking only this part of the directive contained in the closing paragraph, viz.: “ * * * fix a reasonable sum as rental for the property encroached upon by defendants and for an attorney’s fee and costs.” The contention is that this directive “did not leave the question of the amount or whether attorney fees should be properly awarded to be determined by the superior court.”
The pertinent statute governing this matter provides that where a disclaimer of interest or right in real property is refused prior to bringing an action to quiet title “ * * * the court may allow plaintiff, in addition to the ordinary costs, an attorney’s fee to be fixed by the court.” A.R.S. Section 12-1103, subd. B. In Murphey v. Gray, 84 Ariz. 299, 327 P.2d 751, 756, we held that “plainly, by the terms of this statute, attorney fees * * * are included as costs.” It was not our intention in the instant case to foreclose the exercise by the trial court of a sound discretion in determining whether an attorney’s fee should be allowed and if so in what amount.
The above quoted portion of the directive is changed to read:
“fix a reasonable sum as rental for the property encroached upon by defendants; exercise a sound discretion in determining whether an attorney’s fee should be allowed and, if so, fix the amount thereof.”
As thus modified, the original opinion is in all respects affirmed.
STRUCKMEYER, C. J,, and PHELPS, UDALL, JOHNSON and BERNSTEIN, JJ., concur.