301 P.3d 182
Alaska2013Background
- Taylor purchased a home; Wells Fargo held the primary mortgage and foreclosed when Taylor fell behind on payments.
- Wells Fargo promised to reconvey if Taylor signed a release of all claims; Taylor accepted, deleting a confidentiality clause before signing.
- Wells Fargo later refused to perform; the bank and its counsel pursued related claims and trial proceedings ensued.
- Taylor sued for breach of settlement and fraudulent inducement; Wells Fargo and Routh Crabtree defended.
- The superior court granted partial summary judgment on breach, conducted a bench trial on fraud, and awarded damages including rental value and unpaid loan balance, prejudgment interest, and attorney’s fees, later revising some awards.
- On appeal, the Alaska Supreme Court reverses certain awards (rental damages, prejudgment interest tied to those damages) and remands for recalculation of attorney’s fees under Rule 68, with broader affirmations of the remaining rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rental damages post-foreclosure were proper | Taylor | Wells Fargo | Error: rental damages abandoned; reverse |
| Whether Wells Fargo could claim the unpaid loan balance without a deed of trust note (statute of frauds) | Taylor | Wells Fargo | Taylor admitted making an agreement; statute of frauds rejected |
| Whether the directed verdict on fraud was proper | Taylor | Wells Fargo and Routh Crabtree | No reversible error; directed verdict upheld |
| Whether prejudgment interest on rental damages should stand given abandonment | Taylor | Wells Fargo | Waived and vacated in light of rental damages reversal; remand only for interest related to proper awards |
| Whether Wells Fargo and Routh Crabtree were prevailing parties for fee shifting under Rule 68; proper calculation required | Taylor | Wells Fargo and Routh Crabtree | Remand for proper Farnsworth-based calculation; determine prevailing party status anew |
| Whether fees for work on behalf of dismissed defendants and in bankruptcy were properly awarded | Taylor | Routh Crabtree | Error: waive/offset; remand to remove improper fee awards |
| Whether attorney’s fees based on sanctions against counsel were proper | Taylor | Routh Crabtree | Error: exclude time spent seeking sanctions; remand to adjust |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Tracy C., 249 P.3d 1085 (Alaska 2011) (limits on post-foreclosure occupancy damages and related damages issues)
- Cameron v. Chang-Craft, 251 P.3d 1008 (Alaska 2011) (fraudulent misrepresentation elements; reliance)
- Lightle v. State, Real Estate Comm’n, 146 P.3d 980 (Alaska 2006) (fraud/misrepresentation standards cited)
- Farnsworth v. Steiner, 601 P.2d 266 (Alaska 1979) (Rule 68 calculation framework for offers of judgment)
- Rowley v. Amrhein, 883 N.Y.S.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (appellate treatment of judgment/fees and preservation)