Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Sardam v. Morford, 756 P.2d 174 (1988)

Citation
Sardam v. Morford, 756 P.2d 174 (1988)
Parent Document
Sardam v. Morford, 756 P.2d 174 (1988)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1988-06-30

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text

626 chars
However, there is considerable authority that, where both parties prevail on major issues, neither is entitled to attorney fees. McGary v. Westlake Investors, 99 Wn.2d 280, 661 P.2d 971 (1983); Tallman v. Durussel, 44 Wn. App. 181, 721 P.2d 985, review denied, 106 Wn.2d 1013 (1986); Rowe v. Floyd, 29 Wn. App. 532, 629 P.2d 925 (1981). Here, each party successfully defended against a *912major claim by the other. It would be inequitable to award substantial fees in these circumstances, particularly where the money judgment involved actuálly was simply a recognition that Ms. Morford was owed a portion of her own deposit.