Laack v. Botello

“The award of an enhanced prevailing party fee is a discretionary determination, and it does not require the trial court to have ‘found that [defendant] acted in a reckless manner.’ The court must consider the conduct of the parties, but it is not required to find recklessness. See ORS 20.190(3)(a)."

Defendant appealed a supplemental judgment which awarded the plaintiff $5,640 in enhanced prevailing fees and $5,685.82 in costs. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in designating the plaintiffs as the prevailing party and in determining the plaintiff's awards. Defendants only appealed to the supplemental judgment, not the general judgment, which contained the prevailing parties' verdict. Because the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear matters in the general judgment, it did not hear the merits of the prevailing parties' issue.

“The award of an enhanced prevailing party fee is a discretionary determination, and it does not require the trial court to have ‘found that [defendant] acted in a reckless manner.’ The court must consider the conduct of the parties, but it is not required to find recklessness. See ORS 20.190(3)(a)." The Court concluded that while the enhanced prevailing fees were valid, the Court erred in awarding superfluous costs to plaintiffs under ORCP 68. As to prevailing party fees, the defendant offered no evidence to dispute that his conduct was unreasonable, which the trial court properly based its decision on his stubborn refusal to relinquish unclaimed property. The Court found that costs must be "reasonable and necessary expenses” incurred during litigation. The Court reasoned that the trial court’s award for unspecified filing fees, court reporter fees, mediator fees, and surveying fees was not included under "reasonable and necessary” costs. The Court affirmed the enhanced prevailing party fees, but reduced the costs to $3,560.70. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED AND REMANDED for award of costs.