Target National Bank v. Jeanette E. Higgins

FILED
MARCH 20, 2014
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
TARGET NATIONAL BANK, )
) No. 31575-4-III
Respondent, )
)
v. ) PUBLISHED OPINION
)
JEANETTE E. HIGGINS, et aI., )
)
Appellant. )
FEARING, J. - Target National Bank sued Jeanette Higgins for defaulting on a
credit card debt. The trial court granted Higgins' motion for summary judgment. As the
prevailing party, Higgins requested $11,076 in reasonable attorney fees and costs under
both RCW 4.84.250 and RCW 4.84.330, respectively labeled "the small claims
settlement statute" and the "reciprocal attorney fees clause statute." The trial court
denied fees under RCW 4.84.250, ruling that Higgins gave no notice that she sought fees
under the statute. The trial court granted Higgins fees and costs under the Target contract
and RCW 4.84.330 but limited the award to $5,625 because of the minimal amount in
dispute. Higgins appeals this award as deficient. We agree with her that she may recover
fees under RCW 4.84.250 and that, based upon the policies behind the statute, the amount
in dispute should not be a factor when awarding reasonable attorney's fees. We reverse
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat 'i Bank v. Higgins
and remand for an additional hearing on the amount of fees to award.
FACTS
Target filed suit for breach of contract against Jeanette Higgins for nonpayment of
a credit card debt in the amount of$2,052.37. In its complaint, Target requested
reasonable attorney's fees, although it did not identify any basis for the request. In a
default judgment motion, Target also claimed it was "entitled to its costs and attorney's
fees pursuant to contract and/or statute." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 12. In her answer,
Higgins denied liability, admitting only that she "at one time had an account with some
Target affiliated entity." CP at 6. She also requested "reasonable attorney's fees and
costs for the defense of such action." CP at 7. The answer did not specify any basis upon
which attorney's fees were sought.
Jeanette Higgins sent to Target a notice of deposition, requests for production,
interrogatories, and requests for admissions. After the deadline for answering discovery
passed, Higgins moved for summary judgment, claiming that Target failed to respond, in
discovery, with any admissible evidence to prove a debt. In addition, Higgins argued that
Target's law firm was an unlicensed debt collector, the lack of a license barred the action,
and Target failed to show compliance with consumer protection laws.
Before the hearing on Jeanette Higgins' summary judgment, Target moved for
summary judgment and responded to Higgins' requests for discovery. As part of its
response to Jeanette Higgins' summary judgment motion, Target filed a copy of the
2
No. 31575-4-II1
Target Nat'/ Bankv. Higgins
purported credit card agreement. Section 12 of that agreement reads, in part:
DEFAULTrrERMINATION OF CREDIT PRIVILEGES . ... Ifwe
refer your Account to an attorney for collection, you must pay to us all
costs and expenses of collection, including attorneys' fees, to the extent not
prohibited by law.
CP at 137.
After motions were filed but before any summary judgment hearing, Jeanette
Higgins wrote Target, through counsel, offering to settle if Target paid her $3,700 in
attorney's fees incurred to date. The letter contained no reference, however, to
RCW 4.84.250 or any other statutory basis for an award of attorney's fees. The letter did
not even expressly state that Higgins will seek an award of reasonable attorney's fees and
costs from the court, if successful in litigation. The letter read, in part:
Thank you for your letter dated November 22, 2011. My client agrees that
it is in the parties['] best interest to settle this matter and not waste anymore
of the court[']s time or incur any additional attorney's fees and costs. Thus,
my client is willing to accept the sum of$3700.00 to resolve the state-court
lawsuit. This amount reflects an approximation of my attorney's fees
incurred to date and will necessarily increase should your client force me to
perform additional work in this matter.
CP at 256.
The trial court heard Target's motion for summary judgment first. The trial court
denied Target's motion, ruling that Target failed to produce admissible evidence to
support a debt owed by Higgins. Two weeks later, the trial court granted Higgins'
motion for summary judgment. The trial court repeated its ruling that Target failed to
3
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
produce admissible evidence to establish a foundation for the Target credit card
agreement.
Jeanette Higgins requested an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In
support of the request, Higgins filed a declaration from her counsel, and a log of the
services counsel performed. A memorandum in support of her application for fees was
the first mention of either RCW 4.84.250 or RCW 4.84.330 being the basis for the
request. Higgins requested $5.25 in costs, $7,788.50 in attorney's fees for 36.3 hours
worked at $225.00 per hour, and a multiplier of one and one-half for an exceptional
outcome and counsel's representing a client who would typically lack representation.
Target moved for reconsideration of the summary judgment ruling, which motion
the trial court denied. Higgins responded to this motion for reconsideration and moved to
strike the declaration of opposing counsel supporting the motion. Higgins' counsel also
filed a second declaration in support of defendant's motion for award of attorney's fees
and costs. With the addition of time spent responding to the motion for reconsideration,
Higgins sought $9,333.50 for 44.1 hours worked.
On the day scheduled for the fees hearing, Target's new counsel, who had yet to
file a notice of appearance, requested a continuance. The trial court granted this request
and continued the hearing two weeks. Higgins' counsel then filed a third declaration,
which added time for the additional hearing and phone calls with opposing counseL The
new request was $10,143.50 in attorney's fees for 47.7 hours worked.
4
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
Target filed a declaration from its counsel in opposition to Higgins' motion for
attorney's fees. The declaration stated, in part, that counsel was not notified that Higgins
sought an award of fees under RCW 4.84.250 until judgment was granted to Higgins.
Higgins replied to this motion the next day. Higgins' counsel also filed his last
declaration in support of attorney's fees and costs seeking an additional $877.50 for 3.9
hours worked for the reply.
The trial court ruled that Higgins failed to meet RCW 4.84.250's notice
requirement. The trial court, however, awarded attorney's fees and costs to Higgins
under the Target contract and RCW 4.84.330. The court reduced Higgins' counsel's
proposed hours worked from 51.85 hours to 25 hours. The award was $5,625, based
upon an hourly rate of $225. The trial court noted by hand, in its written order, that
"[t]he court also considered the amount in controversy-$2,052.37." CP at 272.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Notice Under the Small Claims Settlement Statute
When a party seeks reasonable attorney's fees and costs on two grounds and is
granted fees and costs under one ground, a court generally need not determine if the party
may recover attorney's fees under the second ground. The trial court granted Jeanette
Higgins reasonable attorney's fees and costs under RCW 4.84.330, but she assigns error
to the trial court's failure to grant her full request for fees. She claims the trial court
5
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
mistakenly considered the amount in controversy as a factor when discounting the fees
sought. More importantly, Higgins posits that RCW 4.84.250, the small claims
settlement statute, unlike RCW 4.84.330, the reciprocal attorneys' fees clause statute,
encourages a full award in claims under $10,000. The trial court denied recovery under
RCW 4.84.250. Therefore, we must address whether Higgins is entitled to an award
under the small claims settlement statute. In specific, we must address whether Higgins
needed to provide notice under the statute and, if so, whether she gave sufficient notice.
Higgins otherwise qualifies for fees under RCW 4.84.250.
This court reviews the legal basis for an award of attorney's fees de novo. Hulbert
v. Port a/Everett, 159 Wash. App. 389, 407, 245 P.3d 779 (2011). In Washington,
attorney's fees may be awarded only when authorized by a private agreement, a statute,
or a recognized ground of equity. Labriola v. Pollard Grp.] Inc., 152 Wash. 2d 828, 839,
100 P.3d 791 (2004). RCW 4.84.250 authorizes a trial court to award attorney's fees,
under certain circumstances, in disputes of$IO,OOO or less. Under RCW 4.84.250, a trial
court shall award the prevailing party attorney's fees if the statutory requirements are
satisfied. Davy v. Moss, 19 Wash. App. 32, 33-34, 573 P.2d 826 (1978).
RCW 4.84.250 states in full:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of chapter 4.84 RCW and
RCW 12.20.060, in any action for damages where the amount pleaded by
the prevailing party as hereinafter defined, exclusive ofcosts, is seven
thousand five hundred dollars or less, there shall be taxed and allowed to
the prevailing party as a part ofthe costs of the action a reasonable amount
6
No. 31575-4-II1
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
to be fixed by the court as attorneys 'fees. After July 1, 1985, the
maximum amount of the pleading under this section shall be ten thousand
dollars.
(Emphasis added.) A plainti ff is the prevailing party only if her recovery exceeds the
amount at which she offered to settle. RCW 4.84.260. RCW 4.84.280 outlines the
procedure for a settlement offer and requires that the offer be made at least 10 days prior
to trial. Beckmann v. Spokane Transit Auth., 107 Wash. 2d 785, 787, 733 P.2d 960 (1987).
A defendant is the prevailing party if the plaintiff recovers nothing, even if the defendant
made no settlement offer, or, if a settlement offer is made, the award is less than the offer.
RCW 4.84.270; see Puget Sound Nat 'I Bank v. Burt, 56 Wash. App. 868, 786 P.2d 300
(1990). The purpose ofRCW 4.84.250 is to encourage out-of-court settlements and to
penalize parties who unjustifiably bring or resist small claims. Williams v. Tilaye, 174
Wash. 2d 57, 62,272 P.3d 235 (2012); Beckmann, 107 Wash. 2d at 788; Harold Meyer Drug
v. Hurd,23 Wn. App. 683, 687, 598 P.2d 404 (1979). "The obvious legislative intent is
to enable a party to pursue a meritorious small claim without seeing his award diminished
in whole or in part by legal fees." Northside Auto Serv., Inc. v. Consumers United Ins.
Co., 25 Wash. App. 486, 492, 607 P.2d 890 (1980).
Common law has consistently required that the party from whom attorney's fees
are sought receive notice before trial that it may be subject to fees under the pertinent
statute. Lay v. Hass, 112 Wash. App. 818, 824, 51 P.3d 130 (2002); Pub. Uti/so Dist. No.1
ofGrays Harbor v. Crea, 88 Wash. App. 390, 393-94, 945 P.2d 722 (1997) (PUD No.1).
7
No. 3 I 575-4-III
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
The law with respect to the timing, form and content of notice required for an award
under RCW 4.84.250 has experienced a convoluted history. We review the key cases in
an attempt to discern whether Washington law is lenient enough to deem Target on notice
that Higgins sought fees under RCW 4.84.250.
In Tatum v. R&R Cable, Inc., 30 Wash. App. 580, 585, 636 P.2d 508 (1981), we
held that the "provisions ofRCW 4.84.250" must be pled to put the defendant on notice
of the fact that the plaintiff seeks attorney's fees under the statute. The holding, if taken
literally, would require the litigant to quote from the statute in addition to referencing the
statute in the complaint or answer. The Tatums' award exceeded their offers to
settle, but they pled the statute providing for treble damages for damage to trees, not
RCW 4.84.250, in their prayer seeking an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Thus, we denied the request for fees.
We followed the holding of Tatum in Warren v. Glascam Builders, Inc., 40 Wn.
App. 229, 698 P.2d 565 (1985), and applied the holding to a fee request under
RCW 49.48.030, which provides for recovery of fees in an action in which the claimant
recovers judgment for wages or salary. In his complaint, Warren asked for an award of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, but did not cite the statute. Therefore, he was
denied a fee award.
The Supreme Court overruled Tatum and Warren in Beckmann. Beckmann sued
for personal injuries and, II days before trial, delivered to the transit authority an offer to
8
No. 3 I 575-4-III
Target Nat'{ Bank v. Higgins
settle for $3,000. Beckmann, 107 Wash. 2d at 787. The offer infonned the transit authority
that it was tendered pursuant to RCW 4.84.280, a statute related to RCW 4.84.250. The
trial court awarded her $4,360 in damages. Beckmann, 107 Wash. 2d at 787.
The Beckmann court affinned that the purpose behind RCW 4.84.250 requires
some type of notice so that the opposing party would realize the amount of the claim is
small and the party should settle or else risk paying the prevailing party's attorney's fees.
Beckmann, 107 Wash. 2d at 788-89. However, notice in the original pleadings was not
necessary. Id. at 789. The Tatum court had provided little justification as to why notice
was needed in the initial pleadings. The Beckmann court agreed with Beckmann that the
10-day notice provision in RCW 4.84.280 should be sufficient to apprise the defendant
that attorney's fees are being sought. The court noted the predicament of a personal
injury plaintiff giving notice to a defendant as to the amount of an award sought, since
RCW 4.28.360 prohibits the complainant from stating the amount of damages she seeks.
The court, however, did not limit its holding to personal injury cases.
The posture of Higgins' suit is distinct from the posture of Beckmann, Tatum, and
Warren. In the three previous cases, plaintiffs sought fees. Notice to defendant was, in
part, needed in order to alert the defendant as to the amount sought in litigation. Jeanette
Higgins is the defendant. The defendant can recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs
without an offer of settlement, if the plaintiff recovers nothing. Target already knew the
amount, for which it sued, was under $10,000. Thus, notice to Target could be
9
No. 31575-4-III
Target Nat'/ Bankv. Higgins
considered superfluous. All plaintiffs could be considered automatically on notice that
they are subject to an award of fees if the amount in issue is less than $10,000. The
defendant giving notice serves little, if any, purpose under such circumstances.
Beckmann promotes substance over form and teleology over technicality to the favor of
Jeanette Higgins. But Beckmann does not hold that a defendant need not give any notice,
nor does it stand for the proposition that a defendant may give notice of a claim for fees
without specifying that she relies on RCW 4.84.250.
The next decision chronologically, Toyota ofPuyallup, Inc. v. Tracy, 63 Wn. App.
346,818 P.2d 1122 (1991), brings us closer to the appeal before us. Tracy brought his
car to Toyota for repairs of the engine and transmission. Toyota sued Tracy for a repair
bill, a portion of which Tracy disputed. Six months before trial Tracy's counsel wrote to
Toyota's counsel offering "'to settle all claims with Toyota of Puyallup by payment of
$1,800.00.'" Id. at 353. The court granted Toyota judgment for $1,152.55, after which
Tracy applied for an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs under RCW 4.84.250.
Toyota argued it was entitled to notice that Tracy would be seeking reasonable attorney's
fees under RCW 4.84.250 through .290 if the offer was not accepted. The Court of
Appeals agreed. The court characterized counsel's letter as "no notice at all." Toyota, 63
Wash. App. at 354. The letter said nothing about the consequences of not accepting the
offer, about reasonable attorney's fees, or about any statutory authority for fees. In his
original answer, Tracy alleged that he was entitled to reasonable attorney's fees
10
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
'''pursuant to the reciprocal attorney's fee statute,'" or RCW 4.84.330. Toyota, 63 Wn.
App. at 354 n.9. The answer did not notify Toyota that Tracy would seek reasonable
attorney's fees under the authority ofRCW 4.84.250 through .290. The court denied
Tracy an award.
With Tracy, we draw one step closer to our case, but still one step away. Toyota
recovered something, although less than Tracy offered. Target, on the other hand,
recovered nothing. Therefore, an offer from Jeanette Higgins was not needed to qualify
for fees. We must still determine what notice is necessary when a defendant recovers
nothing.
The next decision is Last Chance Riding Stable, Inc. v. Stephens, 66 Wn. App.
710,832 P.2d 1353 (1992). Last Chance obtained two judgments against Tommy and
Debbie Stephens in small claims court. On the Stephenses' appeal to superior court, both
judgments were reversed and both lawsuits dismissed. Attorney's fees were awarded to
the Stephenses under the small claims settlement statute. Last Chance appealed the
award of attorney's fees and the Court of Appeals reversed. Last Chance argued that the
superior court erred in awarding attorney's fees because the Stephenses did not give
notification that they were seeking fees prior to the trial de novo. The Stephenses
contended no prior notice was required. The trial court awarded attorney's fees pursuant
to RCW 4.84.250 and the Court of Appeals reversed.
11
No. 3 I 575-4-III
Target Nat'/ Bank v. Higgins
The Last Chance court reasoned that requiring an offer of settlement or other prior
notice of intent to seek attorney's fees under the facts presented fulfills the purpose of
RCW 4.84.250 through .300, which is to encourage out-of-court settlements and to
penalize parties who unjustifiably bring or resist small claims. These purposes require
some type of notice so that parties would realize the amount of the ciaim is small and that
they should settle or else risk paying the prevailing party's attorney's fees. Since the
record failed to show Last Chance was given notice of the Stephenses' attempt to seek
attorney's fees, the fees were improperly awarded.
In re Estate ofTosh, 83 Wash. App. 158, 920 P.2d 1230 (1996) goes the additional
step, supports Jeanette Higgins' position, but rests on shaky ground. The case entails a
claimant recovering nothing and the defendant seeking an award under RCW 4.84.250.
Rita Willis brought suit contesting the validity of a trust signed by her father before his
death. She sued the beneficiary under the trust and Security Benefits, Inc., who prepared
the trust instrument. The Court of Appeals mentioned difficulty in discerning the nature
of the claim against Security Benefits but speculated the claim might be for professional
malpractice. The opinion does not disclose the amount of the claim against Security
Benefits. The trial court denied Willis relief and granted reasonable attorney's fees and
costs to Security Benefits under RCW 4.84.250. On appeal, Willis sought to overturn the
award and argued that Security Benefits was required to give notice of a request for fees
10 days before the scheduled trial date in order to qualify for an award. Security Benefits
12
No. 31575-4-III
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
in fact gave notice of its request for fees 11 days before trial began. The court rejected
Willis' contention that the scheduled trial date, as opposed to the date trial actually began,
must be used to determine the timeliness of the notice. The decision does not disclose
the form or content of the notice given.
The Tosh court could have ended its discussion when holding the notice was
timely, but went further and wrote that it doubted that Beckmann stood for the
proposition argued by Willis. The Tosh court read Beckmann to establish that giving
notice of the claim being small was important, if not controlling, rather than giving notice
that the party sought fees under RCW 4.84.250. The Tosh court wrote that "[t]he
settlement offer in Beckmann did not explicitly refer to either RCW 4.84.250 or attorney
fees." Tosh, 83 Wash. App. at 165. This comment is erroneous. Although the Beckmann
settlement letter did not specify RCW 4.84.250, the offer informed the defendant
that it was tendered pursuant to RCW 4.84.280, part of the statutory scheme with
RCW 4.84.250. RCW 4.84.280 is the provision that explains service of the offer of
settlement and the statute specifically references RCW 4.84.250.
The Tosh court further wrote:
The [Beckmann] court nevertheless held that the settlement offer provided
sufficient notice that RCW 4.84.250 applied. Thus, Beckmann does not
require explicit, advance notice of a fee request, but requires only notice of
the size of the claim. At least one other court similarly interpreted
Beckmann [citing Schmerer v. Darcy, 80 Wash. App. 499, 910 P.2d
498 (1996)]. Where, as here, a plaintiff pleads a dollar amount less than the
statutory maximum, all parties are put on notice that the small claim fee
13
No. 3 1575-4-III
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
provision applies, and the Beckmann notice requirement is satisfied.
Nor did Beckmann require a notice to be given ten days before trial.
Beckmann involved a prevailing plaintiff, who must make a settlement
offer in order to qualifY for a fee award. The ten-day provision referred to
in that case applies to settlement offers. Unlike the plaintiff, a prevailing
defendant in a case within the statutory limit need not make a settlement
offer to qualifY for a fee award, and thus need not comply with that ten-day
provision.
Tosh, 83 Wash. App. at 165 (footnote omitted). Tosh's dicta declares that a
defendant need not give any notice that she seeks an award of reasonable
attorney's fees and costs, let alone identifY RCW 4.84.250 as the basis of the claim
for fees, when the plaintiff recovers nothing.
Contrary to the dicta in Tosh, Schmerer did not hold that advance notice of a fee
request is not mandatory. In Schmerer, the defendant asserted a counterclaim against
plaintiff and the plaintiff provided an offer to settle pursuant to RCW 4.84.250. The
defendant recovered nothing on the counterclaim. Plaintiff then sought an award of fees,
which was denied because the counterclaim exceeded $10,000 in amount.
Next in history comes PUD No.1, 88 Wash. App. 390. The trial court assessed
$8,870 in attorney's fees against the public utility district that had unsuccessfully sued
Timothy Crea for $6,570 in damages to a utility pole struck by Crea's car. The public
utility district appealed the award, arguing that RCW 4.84.250 did not authorize an award
of attorney's fees because Crea did not give notice of his intent to seek such award. The
Court of Appeals affirmed.
14
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat'{ Bank v. Higgins
Before trial, the public utility district made a written offer of settlement, which
Crea rejected. The offer of settlement read, ", Pursuant to RCW 4.84.250, et seq[.], we
hereby offer to settle the claim ofthe plaintiff in the above action for $6,570.24." PUD
No.1, 88 Wash. App. at 392 n.2. The jury returned a verdict in Crea's favor, finding that
Crea was not negligent.
After trial, Crea requested $9,307.19 in attorney's fees under RCW 4.84.250,
which the trial court granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed. According to the court in
PUD No.1, Beckmann did not require a party seeking attorney's fees specifically to plead
RCW 4.84.250 or to ask for attorney's fees. PUD No.1, 88 Wash. App. at 394. It is
sufficient that the charged party received actual notice of the statute prior to trial, thereby
putting that party on notice of the risk of an attorney's fees assessment. Id. The public
utility district had actual notice of the statute giving rise to an award of attorney's fees to
the prevailing party. The public utility district itself cited RCW 4.84.250 in its letter to
Crea offering to settle. That Crea did not provide additional notice to the public utility
district was irrelevant.
The PUD No.1 court considered there to be two acceptable alternatives to achieve
the objectives ofRCW 4.84.250: an offer of settlement or other prior notice of intent to
seek attorney's fees. PUD No.1, 88 Wn. App at 395. All that is required is '" some type
of notice so that parties would realize the amount of the claim is small and that they
should settle or else risk paying the prevailing party's attorney's fees.'" Id. (quoting Last
15
No. 31575-4-III
Target Nat'l Bank v. Higgins
Chance, 66 Wash. App. at 714).
Lay v. Hass, 112 Wash. App. 818, a property line dispute, comes next on our
odyssey. The Lays filed a motion for summary judgment that encompassed all of their
claims, including their claims for damages and attorney's fees and costs. Before the trial
court ruled on the Lays' summary judgment motion, the Lays filed a motion for nominal
damages and attorney's fees, in which they specifically pled attorney's fees under
RCW 4.84.250. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion and awarded fees
to the Lays.
On appeal, the Hasses unsuccessfully argued they lacked notice that the Lays
sought reasonable attorney's fees and costs under RCW 4.84.250. The Lay court agreed
with PUD No.1 that the party seeking attorney's fees need not specifically plead
RCW 4.84.250 or to ask for attorney's fees. Actual notice to the opposing party is
sufficient. Thus, the Lays' motion for attorney's fees and damages was sufficient notice
under RCW 4.84.250 to apprise the Hasses that the amount in controversy was only $433
and that the Lays sought attorney's fees if they prevailed. The Hasses had more than 10
days, after notice but before the motion hearing, to settle the suit.
The last decision addressing notice under RCW 4.84.250 is In re 1992 Honda
Accord, 117 Wash. App. 510, 71 P.3d 226 (2003). Becerra sued the city of Warden
claiming the city wrongfully impounded his car. The reviewing court granted him relief
but denied him an award of fees under RCW 4.84.250. Becerra did not give notice of his
16
No. 31575-4-III
Target Nat'/ Bank v. Higgins
intent to seek fees under RCW 4.84.250, nor did he broach the possibility of settlement.
Jeanette Higgins broached settlement with Target. In her settlement demand, she
insisted on payment of her attorney's fees and warned that the amount would increase if
the case went to trial. She did not expressly state that she would seek an award of
reasonable attorney's fees after trial, but such intent was inescapably implied. Thus, we
conclude that Higgins gave notice that she would ask the court for an award of fees if she
prevailed at trial or hearing.
Going further, we conclude that Target was on notice that Higgins would seek fees
under RCW 4.84.250. Higgins' counsel should have, as a matter of precaution, but did
not cite the statute in his settlement demand. Nevertheless, Target, as the master of its
claim, knew that the suit was limited to $2,052.37. Target would know that any party
will ask for fees under whatever grounds are available and the small claims settlement
statute would apply. Target's counsel protests that he did not know that Higgins would
seek fees under the small claims settlement statute. He should have known after Higgins
insisted on payment of fees as a condition of settlement.
The Beckmann court affirmed that the purpose behind RCW 4.84.250 requires
some type of notice so that the opposing party would realize the amount of the claim is
small and the party should settle or else risk paying the prevailing party's attorney's fees.
Beckmann is the only Supreme Court case addressing notice requirements. Beckmann
emphasizes notice of the claim being small as more important than notice of the statute
17
No. 3 1575-4-III
Target Nat '[ Bank v. Higgins
under which fees will be sought. Again, Target knew its claim was small and counsel's
letter warned of a risk of paying more fees if the case was not settled.
PUD No.1 holds that actual notice of the statute is sufficient notice, even ifno
notice is given by the prevailing defendant. Target argues it did not have actual notice.
But the PUD No.1 ruling does not preclude a ruling that constructive notice is also
sufficient.
The Tosh court wrote that, "Where ... a plaintiff pleads a dollar amount less than
the statutory maximum, all parties are put on notice that the small claim fee provision
applies, and the Beckmann notice requirement is satisfied." Tosh, 83 Wash. App. at 165.
Under this language, constructive notice satisfies the notice requirement. Admittedly this
language is dictum, but the dictum furthers the teaching of Beckmann to avoid
technicalities. We hold that under these circumstances, when the plaintiff knows that its
claim is under $10,000 and the defendant has demanded payment of fees as part ofa
settlement demand, the defendant may recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs under
RCW 4.84.250.
In so ruling, we recognize that RCW 4.84.250 through .290 imposes no duty upon
a defendant, in cases where the plaintiff recovers nothing, to give plaintiff any notice in
order to recover reasonable attorney's fees. Notice requirements were created by the
courts. The legislature retains the authority to determine what notice is required under
various circumstances.
18
No. 3 1575-4-III
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
Because we hold that Jeanette Higgins is entitled to recover reasonable
attorney's fees under the small claims settlement statute, we do not address the impact of
RCW 4.84.330 on the amount of fees recoverable. We agree with Higgins that the small
claims settlement statute is more likely to reject the amount in dispute as a factor in
determining the reasonableness of fees.
Amount in Controversy as Factor to Consider in Awarding Fees
Under Small Claims Settlement Statute
Our holding that Higgins may recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs under
RCW 4.84.250 is only a partial victory for Higgins. We must still decide whether the
trial court should have granted more fees. In particular, we must determine if the trial
court correctly considered the amount in dispute when reducing the fee award. Because
of the numerous suits with a limited amount in controversy and the impact this decision
may have on those many suits, we perform, before reaching our conclusion, a thorough
examination of the purpose behind RCW 4.84.250 and Washington case law addressing
whether the amount in controversy is relevant when awarding reasonable attorney's fees.
Under RCW 4.84.250, a court, in an action where the amount pleaded is $10,000
or less, shall award to the prevailing party "a reasonable amount to be fixed by the court
as attorneys' fees." This statutory language echoes the general principle that an award of
attorney's fees against an opposing party, known as fee shifting, must be "reasonable" in
amount, a principle applied regardless of what statute grants the award or if a contract
19
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
clause affords the prevailing party an award of fees. Generally, a determination of
reasonable attorney's fees begins with a calculation of the "lodestar," which is the
number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly
rate. Scott Fetzer Co. v. Weeks, 122 Wash. 2d 141, 149-50,859 P.2d 1210 (1993);
Berryman v. Metcalf, 177 Wash. App. 644, 660, 312 P.3d 745 (2013).
Under the lodestar method of determining reasonable fees, the court must first
"exclude from the requested hours any wasteful or duplicative hours and any hours
pertaining to unsuccessful theories or claims." Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wash. 2d 398, 434,
957 P.2d 632 (1998). Second, the trial court may adjust or apply a multiplier to the
award "either upward or downward to reflect factors not already taken into
consideration"-specifically, the contingent nature of success and the quality of work
performed. Ross v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 82 Wash. App. 787, 800,919 P.2d
1268 (1996), reversed on other grounds, 132 Wash. 2d 507, 940 P.2d 252 (1997); see also
Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins., 100 Wash. 2d 581, 598-99,675 P.2d 193 (1983). "The
lodestar amount may be adjusted to account for subjective factors such as the level of
skill required by the litigation, the amount of potential recovery, time limitations imposed
by the litigation, the attorney's reputation, and the undesirability of the case." San Juan
County v. No New Gas Tax, 160 Wash. 2d 141, 171, 157 P.3d 831 (2007).
RPC 1.5(a) lists 12 factors to consider when evaluating the reasonableness of
attorney's fees for purposes of attorney ethics. Washington courts have ruled that the
20
No. 31575-4-III
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
factors should be considered when addressing fee shifting in litigation. Mahler, 135
Wash. 2d at 433 n.20 (1998); Fetzer, 122 Wash. 2d at 148-49; Brand v. Dep't o/Labor &
Indus., 139 Wash. 2d 659, 666,989 P.2d 1111 (1999); Berryman, 177 Wash. App. at 660.
Factor four directs consideration of "the amount involved and the results obtained."
RPC 1.5(a)(4) (emphasis added). Our courts have disagreed as to the importance ofthis
"proportionality" factor. Two courts have written that, in assessing the reasonableness of
a fee request, a "vital" consideration is "the size of the amount in dispute in relation to the
fees requested." Berryman, 177 Wash. App. at 660; accord Fetzer, 122 Wash. 2d at 150. An
earlier court wrote that the amount of damages involved is not a compelling factor in
fixing the amount of fees. Travis v. Wash. Horse Breeders Ass 'n, 111 Wn.2d 396,409,
759 P.2d 418 (1988). The trial court based Higgins' award on the nominal size of the
dispute and significantly reduced the amount sought for no other stated reason.
F or several reasons, we reverse the trial court and hold that the size of the
controversy must not be considered when fees are awarded under RCW 4.84.250.
First, taking into account the size of the dispute conflicts with the purposes behind
RCW 4.84.250. In the setting of worker's compensation claims, the Supreme Court has
rejected the amount in controversy as a dynamic in awarding fees. Second, Washington
courts proclaim the principle that size matters, but do not apply it. Cases under contract
attorney's fees clauses and other statutes profess to apply the "amount in issue" factor,
but a careful reading of the cases shows that the disproportionate fee request was based
21
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
upon padding by the lawyer. Fetzer, 122 Wash. 2d at 149; Berryman, 177 Wash. App. at 660.
Third, decisions under RCW 4.84.250 permit fee awards disproportionate to the amount
in dispute. Lay, 112 Wash. App. 818. Even outside the context ofRCW 4.84.250, when a
party seeks an award of fees disproportionate to an award, courts readily grant the request
when documentation supports a reasonable expenditure of time on tasks performed by
counsel. Fiore v. PPG Indus., Inc., 169 Wash. App. 325, 279 P.3d 972 (2012); Taliesen
Corp. v. Razore Land Co., 135 Wash. App. 106, 144 Po3d 1185 (2006); Mayer v. City of
Seattle, 102 Wash. App. 66, 10 Po3d 408 (2000); Dash Point Vill. Assocs. v. Exxon Corp.,
86 Wash. App. 596, 937 P.2d 1148 (1997).
We first review cases wherein the attorney's fees award was reduced ostensibly, in
part, because of a disproportionate recovery, but the decisions show that other factors led
to a reduction in fees. The cases illustrate that courts may combat inflating of attorney
bills by rules unrelated to the size of the controversy.
In Fetzer, 122 Wash. 2d 141, the Scott Fetzer Co. sued Dwight's Discount Vacuum
Cleaner City over the ownership of 120 vacuum cleaners, valued at $19,000. Dwight's
prevailed on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and requested attorney's fees of
$180,914. The trial judge granted $116,788. The Supreme Court reversed the fee award
as excessive and remanded the issue for the trial judge to reevaluate both the hourly rate
and the number of hours claimed. On remand, the trial judge reduced the total award of
fees and costs to $72,746038. On a second appeal, our state high court further reduced the
22
NO.3l575-4-III
Target Nat'l Bank v. Higgins
total award of fees and costs to $22,454.28. The court wrote that the fee award should be
proportionate to the recovery, but the fee application was problematic for other reasons.
Fetzer, 122 Wash. 2d at 150. The court held that the number of hours awarded for bringing
the initial jurisdictional motion exceeded those that were reasonably necessary to prevail
on that motion. Id. at 144. One of the defendant's counsel remarkably spent 34 hours
across three days to prepare the motion to dismiss. Each party had'" declared war'" on
the other, using tactics that were subject to question. Fetzer, 122 Wash. 2d at 152 n.7.
In Berryman, 177 Wash. App. 644, our court declared the amount in dispute to be a
vital consideration, but many other valid reasons explained the court's reduction in fees.
The trial court approved as reasonable a total of 468.55 hours billed by two attorneys for
taking a minor soft tissue injury case through a short trial de novo, where the defendant
did not improve its position after a mandatory arbitration. The jury awarded Berryman
$36,542 in damages. The trial court doubled the lodestar amount and awarded nearly
$292,000, which the appellate court considered an abuse of discretion. There was no
indication that the trial judge actively and independently confronted the question of what
was a reasonable fee. The trial court failed to address whether Berryman's attorneys
double charged for some of the work they performed and that Berryman requested fees
for wasted efforts, duplicative efforts, unidentifiable costs, and inconsistent or vaguely
worded time entries. Records showed that Berryman's two attorneys billed for preparing
for and attending the same depositions, reviewing the same documents, and engaging in
23
No. 3 1575-4-III
Target Nat '/ Bank v. Higgins
the same pretrial preparation. The attorney~ recorded 43.1 hours for their attempt to
obtain discovery of Farmers' claims files, when bad faith was not an issue. The attorneys
billed more than 80 hours for efforts to exclude a defense expert. The attorneys billed a
combined total of 97.4 hours for "client and witness preparation," they billed additional
hours for "witness preparation" on trial days, and they billed an additional 33.5 hours for
"preparation for trial" not otherwise detailed. Berryman, 177 Wash. App. at 663. Block
billing entries obscured time performed on discrete tasks.
We next review cases wherein the attorney's fees award was lopsided compared to
the money in controversy. In Collings v. City First Mortgage Services, LLC, 177 Wn.
App. 908, 929, 317 P.3d lO47 (2013), City First complained on appeal that the attorney's
fee award to Collings of over $600,000 was excessive when compared to his recovery of
$120,000. The court answered that, while the amount of recovery is a relevant
consideration in determining the reasonableness of the fee award, it is not a conclusive
factor. ld. A large attorney's fee award in civil litigation will not be overturned merely
because the amount at stake in the case is small. ld. The top-heavy fee award was
affirmed.
In Fiore, 169 Wash. App. 325, Fiore was awarded $24,406.20 against his employer,
PPG, for unpaid wages. The trial court also awarded Fiore $596,559.47 in attorney's fees
and costs, 24 times the amount of the damage award. On appeal, PPG asserted that the
trial court erred by rejecting considerations of proportionality between the damages
24
No. 3 I 575-4-III
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
award and the attorney's fee award. The court disagreed noting that our Supreme Court
determined that it would'" not overturn a large attorney fee award in civil litigation
merely because the amount at stake in the case is small. '" ld. at 352 (quoting Mahler,
135 Wash. 2d at 433). Rather, the court held, the reasonableness of the fee award is
determined by the lodestar method. ld. The trial court determined that the number of
hours and the hourly rate billed were reasonable and entered extensive findings and
conclusions in support of its determination. Both Fiore and Collings illustrate that the
goal of preventing excessive billing or padding can be reached by discounting time spent
on nonproductive tasks, rather than arbitrarily reducing the amount sought because of the
amount involved. The trial court can also combat an excessive fee request by ensuring
that the fees billed relate to the claims upon which the party won.
Mayer, 102 Wash. App. 66, confirms our view that the court should follow the
lodestar method. Kurtis Mayer, a real estate developer, sued the adjacent property owner,
city, and cement manufacturers under theories of nuisance, negligence, strict liability,
negligence per se and violations of the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), chapter
70.105D RCW. Toxic cement kiln dust escaped onto Mayer's property. The superior
court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the tort claims, ruled that
the city and the adjacent owner were strictly liable under the MTCA, and awarded the
developer $26,314.28 in remedial action costs, $238,702.50 in attorney's fees and
25
No. 31575-4-III
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
$35,599.55 in litigation costs under the MTCA. Mayer, 102 Wash. App. at 74. The
defendants appealed the attorney's fees award.
The Mayer Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment dismissal of the tort
claims and remanded for a new hearing on the amount of attorney's fees. The trial court
had granted fees for work related to the tort claims, which the appellate court found to be
error. The defendants also argued that the attorney's fee award was unreasonable
because it grossly exceeded the amount of the underlying recovery. The court refused to
criticize the trial court on this ground. The court noted that, '" [W]e will not overturn a
large attorney fee award in civil litigation merely because the amount at stake in the case
is small.'" Mayer, 102 Wash. App. 83 (quoting Mahler, 135 Wash. 2d at 433). The relevant
question is whether the court properly applied the lodestar methodology. Id. The amount
of the underlying judgment is relevant in determining the reasonableness of the fee
award, but is not a conclusive factor. Id. On remand, the trial court could award an
amount in attorney's fees disproportionate to the underlying judgment, provided the court
followed the lodestar method.
In Dash Point, 86 Wash. App. at 612-13, our court upheld the recovery of$375,000
in attorney's fees and costs even though the cleanup costs recovered were about $20,000.
The fees were 18.75 times the size of the damage award.
In Taliesen Corp., 135 Wash. App. 106, our court also affirmed a disproportionate
award of fees and costs in an MTCA suit. One defendant, though liable for only $3,400
26
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
in remediation costs, was held liable to pay $537,000 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs.
Another defendant, liable for $34,000 in remediation costs, was held liable to pay over
$500,000 in attorney's fees. The former award was 157 times the amount of the
damages.
We now analyze the statute at issue, RCW 4.84.250. "The primary goal of
statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent and
purpose." Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wash. 2d 775, 797,246 P.3d
768 (2011). The paramount concern of this court is to ensure that the statute is
interpreted consistently with the underlying policy of the statute. Safeco Ins. Cos. v.
Meyering, 102 Wash. 2d 385, 392, 687 P.2d 195 (1984). In determining the amount ofa fee
award, the court must consider the purpose of the statute allowing for attorney's fees.
Fetzer, 122 Wash. 2d at 149; Brand, 139 Wash. 2d at 667; Berryman, 177 Wash. App. at 668.
"The purpose ofRCW 4.84.250 is to encourage out-of-court settlements and to
penalize parties who unjustifiably bring or resist small claims." Beckmann, 107 Wash. 2d at
788. Beckmann's use of the word "penalize" is important, since the civil law rarely seeks
to penalize a litigant. "Another purpose is to enable a party to pursue a meritorious small
claim without seeing his award diminished in whole or in part by legal fees." Lay, 112
Wash. App. at 824 (internal quotation marks omitted). These purposes demand ignoring
the amount in controversy when judging the reasonableness of attorney's fees under
RCW 4.84.250. Considering the amount in issue is an anathema to the essence of the
27
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat '[ Bank v. Higgins
statute.
Lay, 112 Wash. App. 818, reviewed earlier on the issue of notice, illustrates the
purpose behind the small claims settlement statute. A property line dispute arose
between the Lays and the Hasses when the Hasses erected a fence on the Lays' property.
The Lays sued and filed a summary judgment motion for nominal damages and
attorney's fees. The trial court granted the Lays' motion and awarded the Lays $360 for
the trees and shrubs the Hasses removed and $73 for the Hasses' occupation of their land.
The trial court also awarded the Lays $13,545.05 in attorney's fees. On appeal, the
Hasses challenged the reasonableness of the fees.
The Hasses' only argument regarding excessiveness on appeal was that the
attorney's fees awarded were 31 times the case's actual value. The appeals court
affirmed the award, without any mention that the amount involved should be considered.
Instead, the court noted the factors of the reasonableness of the hourly rate, the
reasonable amount of time required to represent the party's case, and the type of case
involved. Id. at 826. The court emphasized that the policy of RCW 4.84.250 is to punish
parties who resist small claims. The court wrote:
"[A]lthough the attorney fees in this case amounted to 31 times the actual
value of the case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it
reasoned that 'in accordance with the spirit of the statute and the history of
this case that $13,545.05 is a reasonable and just figure.'"
Id. at 827.
28
No. 31575-4-III
Target Nat '/ Bank v. Higgins
Brand, 139 Wash. 2d 659, compels our ruling in favor of Jeanette Higgins because
our Supreme Court held, based upon the purposes behind a statute, that the amount in
controversy was irrelevant to the attorney's fee award. Catherine Brand, a worker's
compensation claimant, appealed from the decision of the Board of Industrial Insurance
Appeals finding that she was not totally disabled and assessing the degree of her injuries.
The jury increased her partial disability award. The trial court awarded attorney's fees,
but in an amount less than requested. On appeal, our high court held it was not
appropriate to reduce Brand's fee award based on her degree of success at trial.
Catherine Brand's attorneys requested attorney's fees under RCW 51.52.130,
which provides that the court shall fix a "reasonable fee" for the services of a worker's
attorney if the Board's decision is reversed or modified and additional relief is granted to
the worker on appeal. The trial court awarded Brand an additional $3,120 on appeal, but
rejected her claim for total disability, which would have entitled her to a pension worth
$113,583. The Department argued that the amount of attorney's fees awarded should
have been reduced in light of Brand's small recovery.
The Brand court dutifully uttered the principle that the amount in dispute is a
factor to be considered. But then the court rejected the principle. The court noted a 1929
decision, in which the court held that, in worker's compensation cases, "'the amount of
recovery is but little, if any, guide.'" Brand, 139 Wash. 2d at 666 (quoting Rehberger v.
Dep 't ofLabor & Indus., 154 Wash. 659,662,283 P. 185 (1929)). The Brand court
29
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
further wrote:
Central to the calculation of an attorney fees award, however, is the
underlying purpose of the statute authorizing the attorney fees. . .. Given
that attorney fees statutes may serve different purposes, it is important to
evaluate the purpose of the specific attorney fees provision and to apply the
statute in accordance with that purpose.
The purpose behind the award of attorney fees in workers'
compensation cases is to ensure adequate representation for injured workers
who were denied justice by the Department.
In light of the plain language ofRCW 51.52.130, we hold that
reducing attorney fees awards to account for a worker's limited success is
inappropriate in this context. Under the statute, the worker's degree of
overall recovery is inconsequential. This holding is consistent with the
purposes behind RCW 51.52.130. Awarding full attorney fees to workers
who succeed on appeal before the superior or appellate court will ensure
adequate representation for injured workers.
Commentators have noted that limiting the amount of attorney fees
awarded in workers' compensation cases is inconsistent with the general
purpose of the workers' compensation system. Obligating successful
workers to cover their legal costs reduces the worker's already limited
recovery. . .. [W]e conclude that the worker's degree of overall recovery is
not a relevant factor in calculating the attorney fees award.
ld. at 667, 670, 671.
The facts in this appeal fulfill the purpose behind the small claims settlement
statute and beg for an award of fees unencumbered by the amount in controversy.
Jeanette Higgins' defense was undesirable work to the great majority of attorneys.
Unless Higgins won and she was awarded fees, her attorney might never obtain payment.
Many law firms would not allow Higgins through the office front door. Since the amount
at issue was small, many lawyers would shun her request for employment arid advise her
30
No. 3 I 575-4-II1
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
that it is not economical to hire an attorney or advise her to employ an incompetent
attorney who lacks work.
Higgins denied the debt such that discovery was needed to discern the basis of
Target's claim. Large corporate defendants can be uncooperative in discovery leading to
an increase in effort expended by the debtor's attorney. The delay by Target and its filing
of a summary judgment motion before answering discovery illustrates the truth to this
generalization.
Higgins' attorney should be applauded for performing a service to that portion of
the community that often lacks legal assistance. He should be recompensed for his
services. Target, who could not present facts showing any amount owed, should pay for
those services rather than Higgins. Target was warned by Higgins' counsel not to
proceed further with the lawsuit, but Target insisted on continuing with litigation with the
result that Higgins' counsel's fees increased. Target's attorneys have likely been paid
their entire bill. Higgins' attorney should also be paid his.
Reducing the attorney's fee award by the amount in controversy, rather than
holding to the lodestar method, could lead to arbitrary awards of fees. The decision of
the trial court illustrates the arbitrary nature of reducing a fee request based upon the
amount in dispute. Neither RPC 1.5(a) nor any other principle of law provides any
guidelines for determining the amount of the fee to cut because of the amount at stake.
Other than a low amount being in controversy, our trial court gave no explanation for
31
No. 31575-4-III
Target Nat'/ Bank v. Higgins
reducing the fees sought from $11,076 to $5,625 and gave no explanation as to how it
arrived at $5,625. If the court is to consider the size of the dispute, $3,000 or $7,000
might have been just as appropriate an award.
By our ruling, we do not mean to discount the importance ofRPC 1.5 in disputes
between a client and the attorney concerning fees or in the award of fees in another
setting. But, in the setting of small claims, the purpose ofRCW 4.84.250 should prevail
over the listing of one factor under the code of professional responsibility. Our state high
court has held that, under at least one statute, the amount in controversy shall not be
considered, meaning some policies take precedence over RPC 1.5(a)(4). Brand, 139
Wash. 2d 659. If awarding full attorney's fees to workers who succeed in court will ensure
adequate representation for injured workers, awarding full attorney's fees to litigants in
small claims will also promote adequate representation.
Our ruling does not preclude the trial court from reducing the amount sought by
Jeanette Higgins' attorney. As argued by Target, some of the work performed by counsel
may have been wasteful since the work addressed unsuccessful claims, such as the debt
collector license statute. Under our ruling, wasteful and duplicitous work is still a factor
to consider when determining the reasonableness of the fees. The trial court might also
find that counsel spent excessive time on a particular task. Nevertheless, under our
ruling, the trial court should not reduce the fees sought because of the amount in dispute.
32
No. 31575-4-111
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
Findings ofFact
We vacate the trial court's award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and
remand the case for a second review of the fees requested by Jeanette Higgins. In
reviewing the fee application, the trial court will have discretion in determining the
amount to award consistent with this decision.
We also direct the trial court to enter findings of fact that will allow us to review
any additional appeal of the award. If the court reduces the award from the amount
sought, the trial court should enter findings explaining a reason for the reduction other
than the amount in controversy. Washington courts have repeatedly held that the absence
of an adequate record upon which to review a fee award will result in a remand of the
award to the trial court to develop such a record. Mahler, 135 Wash. 2d at 435; Smith v.
Dalton, 58 Wash. App. 876, 885, 795 P.2d 706 (1990); Rhinehart v. Seattle Times, 59 Wn.
App. 332, 342-43, 798 P.2d 1155 (1990); Bentzen v. Demmons, 68 Wash. App. 339, 350­
51,842 P.2d 1015 (1993); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 72 Wash. App. 580,
595-96,871 P.2d 1066 (1994).
Jeanette Higgins assigns error to the form of the order"the trial court previously
signed awarding attorney's fees. Because those fees have since been paid by Target, we
decline to address this assignment because of its mootness. Generally, this court will not
consider a case if the issue presented is moot. State v. Walker, 93 Wash. App. 382, 385,
967 P.2d 1289 (1998).
33
No. 3 1575-4-III
Target Nat 'I Bank v. Higgins
Attorney's Fees on Appeal
Both parties request reasonable attorney's fees and costs on appeal.
RCW 4.84.290 allows the prevailing party on appeal, attorney's fees on appeal. Lay, 112
Wash. App. at 827. The statute reads, in part:
In addition, if the prevailing party on appeal would be entitled to
attorneys' fees under the provisions ofRCW 4.84.250, the court deciding
the appeal shall allow to the prevailing party such additional amount as the
court shall adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees for the appeal.
RCW 4.84.290. We award attorney's fees for the appeal to the Jeanette Higgins upon her
compliance with RAP 18.1 (d).
CONCLUSION
We reverse and vacate the trial court's award of reasonable attorney's fees to
Jeanette Higgins. We remand the case to the trial court for a determination of reasonable
fees consistent with this decision.
,,:kMl~.3-
Fearing, J. )
WE CONCUR:
-~
D~~
J~
Brown,1. Kulik, J.P.T.
34