Granville v. Howard
236 Ariz. 29
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Granville sued Howard for negligence after a low-speed collision; arbitration awarded Granville $6,719.45 (including medical costs and sanctions). Howard appealed to a trial de novo.
- First superior-court trial returned a defense verdict for Howard; this court reversed and remanded for a new trial (Granville I).
- On remand, a second jury awarded Granville $918.50. The superior court entered judgment for $86,646.40, including $72,000 in attorneys’ fees under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 77(f).
- Howard appealed the fee award; Granville cross-appealed seeking a larger fee award. The court of appeals addressed constitutionality and the reasonableness of the fee award.
- The court vacated the $72,000 fee award and remanded for reconsideration, listing non-exclusive factors trial courts should weigh under Rule 77(f).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Granville) | Defendant's Argument (Howard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Facial and as-applied constitutionality of Rule 77(f) | Rule 77(f) is valid and applies to fee-shifting after arbitration appeals. | Rule 77(f) violates due process/equal protection (analogizing to limits on punitive damages). | Court rejected Howard's constitutional challenges, adopting Fisher v. Edgerton reasoning. |
| 2. Whether the $72,000 award was reasonable under Rule 77(f) | Requested full amount ($142,827.50 on cross-appeal); fees are required if appeal fails to improve result by 23%. | $72,000 is excessive given the small damages and circumstances; court abused discretion. | Vacated the $72,000 award and remanded for reconsideration using enumerated non-exclusive factors. |
| 3. Whether fees for work on the earlier court of appeals appeal (Granville I) are recoverable under Rule 77(f) | Those fees are part of appellate litigation and should be recoverable. | Rule 77(f) governs superior-court award only; appellate fees are governed by appellate rules. | Fees incurred in the court of appeals are not recoverable under Rule 77(f); Granville did not seek ARCAP 21 relief, so those fees are not recoverable. |
| 4. Standard and factors for awarding fees under Rule 77(f) | Broad discretion but fees must be reasonable and for services necessitated by the appeal. | Same; emphasize proportionality and whether appeal was in good faith. | Court set a non-exclusive list of factors trial courts should consider (see opinion) and instructed the superior court to state which were significant on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Edgerton, 236 Ariz. 71 (rejecting due process/equal protection challenges to Rule 77(f))
- Jarostchuk v. Aricol Commc’ns, Inc., 189 Ariz. 346 (court of appeals fees are not recoverable under predecessor rule to 77(f))
- Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 143 Ariz. 567 (discussing factors for reasonable fee awards)
- Poulson v. Ofack, 220 Ariz. 294 (permitting post-arbitration damages at trial de novo relevant to fee analysis)
- Schweiger v. China Doll Restaurant, Inc., 138 Ariz. 183 (appellate court cautions on factfinding limits when reviewing fee reasonableness)