Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)

Citation: Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
Parent Document: Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2013-07-25
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5146856/pajic-v-foote-properties-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,181 chars

. This jurisdiction follows " ‘the American Rule under which ... every party to a case shoulders its own attorneys’ fees, and recovers from other litigants only in the presence of statutory authority, a contractual arrangement, or certain narrowly-defined common law exceptions.’ ” Nest & Totah Venture, LLC v. Deutsch, 31 A.3d 1211, 1229 (D.C.2011) (quoting Psaromatis v. English Holdings I, L.L.C., 944 A.2d 472, 490 (D.C.2008)). We are aware of no statutory authority for attorneys’ fees in this case and, as discussed above, section 304.4 disallows a contractual arrangement. This leaves common law exceptions to the American rule, which "are primarily designed to encourage or to compensate worthy litigants, [and] the bad faith exception is intended to punish those who have abused the judicial process and to deter those who would do so in the future.” Synanon Found., Inc. v. Bernstein, 517 A.2d 28, 37 (D.C.1986). But the trial court never made any finding that Foote Properties should be allowed to take advantage of a common law exception or that Mr. Pajic had engaged in any misconduct such that he should have to pay Foote Properties’ attorneys’ fees as a consequence.

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text