Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/877801%20orderandopinion.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,784 chars

communicating with opposing counsel about a possible settlement. It is undisputed that

TAG Realty never paid its liability to the Cromars until they obtained summary judgment

after having been forced to litigate their right to their security deposit for months. Then,

TAG Realty argued that the Cromars’ counsel’s communication regarding settlement

was a waste of their time. Even then, in arguing that the Cromars incurred unnecessary

attorney fees, TAG Realty argued, “This is a straight-forward issue which could have

been successfully handled by a legal aid clinic, a general practitioner, or a recently

admitted attorney.” In other words, TAG Realty itself admits that its refusal to return the

Cromars’ deposit was so patently illegal that even a new attorney could have

recognized it. Surely, then, TAG Realty and its lawyer could have recognized it. For

TAG Realty to argue, and for the trial court to rule, that the very obviousness of TAG

Realty’s violation is a reason why the Cromars should be denied recovery of their

attorney fees to prosecute it inverts the proverbial cart and the horse and offends basic

notions of fairness.

Second, the trial court’s finding that the Cromars’ pursuit of a class action led to

attorney efforts that did not contribute to the success on their individual claims is not

supported by law or fact.

Where attorney fees are recoverable for only some of a party’s claims, the trial

court’s award must segregate the time spent on claims for which attorney fees are

authorized from time spent on other non-recoverable or unsuccessful claims.

Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders with Ethics & Accountability Now (C.L.E.A.N.), 119

15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
87780-1-I/16