Court Opinion

ID: 9558848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:17:53.453876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:38.352949
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice,
dissenting in part.
The court correctly notes that the superior court determined Baker to be “the prevailing party” without offering any explanation for its conclusion. The court then cites authority which defines “prevailing party” and authority which articulates the standard of review. It then holds that Ashley was the prevailing party as a matter of law.
I am not able to conclude on the record before us that Ashley was the prevailing party as a matter of law. I believe the correct disposition would be to vacate the award of attorney’s fees and costs, and remand the issue for redetermination in light of this court’s decision. The superior court should be instructed to explain the reasons for its redetermined conclusion.
In all other respects I agree with the opinion of the court.