KPS Management v. Edward Esiwily And Eukenio Eswini
33061-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Landlord KPS Management served a three-day notice for $409 unpaid rent and later filed unlawful detainer after rent remained unpaid; total arrears at hearing were $2,059.
- Tenants Edward Esiwily and Eukenio Esiwini received housing subsidy (Spokane Housing Authority) and had Social Security benefits administered by Goodwill; KPS had earlier sent a June termination letter that prompted the housing authority to stop subsidy payments.
- Tenant counsel (Pfundt) sought continuances and argued the nonpayment resulted from the housing authority and payee stopping payments after KPS’s June termination threat; tenants did not dispute that rent was owed.
- At the show-cause hearing the trial court declined to enter a writ of restitution, finding KPS’s earlier termination notice set in motion third-party payment cessation, and directed tenants’ counsel to prepare an order and to move for fees.
- The trial court awarded the tenant $12,820 in attorney fees (64.1 hours at $200/hr) in full, without addressing several specific objections KPS raised to the amount and reasonableness of hours.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed that the tenant was the prevailing party but held the fee award was an abuse of discretion because the trial court failed to address KPS’s specific, tenable objections and remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | KPS's Argument | Esiwily's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tenant was the "prevailing party" under RCW 4.84.330 | KPS: both sides prevailed on major issues (rent owing shown; KPS denied writ), so tenant did not prevail | Tenant: he obtained judgment denying writ/possession claims and thus prevailed | Tenant was a prevailing party; right to possession is primary in unlawful detainer, and tenant prevailed on significant relief |
| Whether the fee award was reasonable | KPS: hours are excessive, include time on unsuccessful positions, duplicative work, and unexplained large block of hours after August 20 continuance | Tenant: submitted billing affidavit and argued hours/rate reasonable given hearing complexity and deadlines | Trial court abused discretion by awarding full amount without resolving KPS’s specific objections; remand to reconsider lodestar and address objections |
| Whether trial court permissibly awarded all requested hours for work after aborted 8/20 hearing | KPS: many post-8/20 hours are unexplained and disproportionate to matter’s complexity; opposing counsel billed far fewer hours | Tenant: work included research, witness/exhibit lists, and preparation for resumed hearing | Court found many objections tenable (except fault for interpreter issue) and required trial court to analyze and reduce hours where appropriate |
| Entitlement to appellate fees if prevailing on appeal | KPS: sought fees on appeal | Tenant: sought fees on appeal | Both parties prevailed on some appeal issues; appellate fee requests denied for both parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc. v. Kraft, 165 Wn.2d 481 (2009) (RCW 4.84.330 makes contractual fee clauses bilateral; prevailing party may recover fees)
- Scott Fetzer Co. v. Weeks, 122 Wn.2d 141 (1993) (burden on fee applicant to show reasonableness)
- Mahler v. Szucs, 135 Wn.2d 398 (1998) (lodestar method: reasonable hours × reasonable rate; court must actively assess billed hours)
- Berryman v. Metcalf, 177 Wn. App. 644 (2013) (trial court abuses discretion by approving fees conclusorily without addressing specific objections)