Court Opinion

ID: 9790924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:01:25.343292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:32.693118
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Mountain States seeks our reconsideration of the attorney fees issue, particularly our conclusion that it was not the “prevailing party” in proceedings before the district court. Although the petition for rehearing is otherwise without merit and is denied, Mountain States identifies an oversimplification in our opinion which merits comment and clarification.
The thrust of Mountain States’ petition is that it must be held the prevailing party since it only claimed all along that it was entitled to some offset, in an amount to be proven, and ultimately proved it was entitled to an offset. Conversely, Mountain States argues, NBA was the loser because it contended no offset was in order and it was proven wrong. Mountain States suggests that the absurdity of our reliance on the “net judgment” rule in a case like this is shown by the fact that if it had proven offsets totalling even $1.00 less than the amount otherwise due under the note, despite a near-total victory for Mountain States the net judgment would still be in favor of NBA and strict application of the net judgment rule would leave NBA the prevailing party.'
Mountain States’ point is well-taken. On the other hand, carrying its own position to an equivalent extreme works an equally untenable result: If Mountain States had shown its entitlement to an offset of only $1.00, under its view it would be the prevailing party since it claimed an offset in an amount to be proven and proved one.
We recognized in footnote 7 of our opinion and here emphasize “the need for a flexible and reasoned approach to deciding in particular cases who actually is the prevailing party.” Consistent with that view, we point out that nothing in our opinion should be taken to suggest that the net judgment rule can be mechanically applied in all cases, although it will usually be at least a good starting point.
*558In this case, we remain convinced that application of the net judgment rule does not distort the relative success of the parties at trial, as seen from two additional perspectives implicit in Mountain States’ petition.12
Taking a narrower focus, the real dispute centered on the $30,000 held in court after the initial disbursement to NBA. Mountain States fought long and hard to show that it was entitled to at least that amount in offsets. NBA claimed it was entitled to the entire fund, pursuant to its note, since Mountain States was not entitled to any offset. Total victory for Mountain States would have been its proving entitlement to all $30,000. Total victory for NBA would have been its proving Mountain States was entitled to nothing. A “draw” would have been a decision dividing the $30,000 equally. As it happened, $6,000 was awarded, in effect, to Mountain States and $24,000 was awarded to NBA.13 NBA walked away with four times what Mountain States did. On the most important single issue, NBA persuaded the trial court that the “brain” was not beyond repair. Mountain States wanted between $13,000 and $35,000 to replace the brain; it got only $3,000 to fix it. Viewed from this vantage point, NBA must surely be deemed the prevailing party.
Taking a more expansive view, comparative victory still belongs to NBA. In this regard, Mountain States notes that our application of the net judgment rule does not take account of a claim NBA unsuccessfully asserted for $50,000 in punitive damages. Working this claim into the analysis, NBA sought approximately $90,000 on its note and $50,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $140,000. It recovered approximately $85,000, or roughly 60% of what it sought. While Mountain States was less specific in its pleadings concerning amounts, at a minimum Mountain States attempted to recover the following amounts from NBA: Missing equipment, $11,500.73; inoperable equipment, $40,-566.71; United Press International claim, $9,510.50; additional payroll expenses, $3,355; and the loss on the resale of one radio station, $5,500, for a total of approximately $70,000. It recovered approximately $6,000.00, or about 9% of what it sought. Even if the amount paid over to NBA early in the course of the litigation is disregarded, while it becomes a closer call NBA still emerges as the comparative winner. In other words, if we treat NBA as claiming $30,000 still due on the note and $50,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $80,000, the $24,000 it then recovered represents 33% of what it sought, which appreciably exceeds the 9% recovery realized by Mountain States.
Viewed in any sensible way, NBA prevailed below and was entitled to the award *559of a reasonable attorney fee as the prevailing party.
DAVIDSON and GREENWOOD, JJ., concur.

. We reject two additional approaches urged by Mountain States. First, Mountain States argues that NBA did not effectively accelerate the balance due under the note so that only unpaid installments, not the entire balance, can properly be deemed the subject of NBA’s claim. Throughout this litigation, the parties and the trial court treated the note as having been accelerated by NBA, rendering the entire balance due. The fact that Mountain States deposited the entire balance into court, rather than merely installments as they came due, is consistent with this conclusion. We accordingly decline to address this contention. See Zions First Nat’l Bank v. National Am. Title Ins. Co., 749 P.2d 651, 657 (Utah 1988).
Second, Mountain States argues that our reliance on Highland Constr. Co. v. Stevenson, 636 P.2d 1034 (Utah 1981), is misplaced. The main opinion cites Highland in support of our conclusion that NBA "prevailed” for purposes of the "net judgment” rule to the full extent of its recovery on the note, including the $59,587.16 voluntarily paid by Mountain States after NBA filed its counterclaim. Mountain States argues that because the full amount of the promissory note was deposited with the court before the counterclaim was filed, the rule established in Highland should not apply. We are not convinced. Even though the amount was deposited into court, NBA was no less deprived of the money it was owed than if Mountain States had merely kept the money in its own account. Either way, NBA was required to march into court, incur attorney fees to collect on the note, and defend itself against the claimed offsets. Accordingly, the locus of the withheld funds pending ultimate resolution is essentially irrelevant in determining whether NBA has prevailed.

. Our initial opinion only shifted a few hundred dollars from NBA to Mountain States and left the parties' comparative degree of success essentially unchanged.