WINN-TECH, INC. v. LAWSON
2017 OK CIV APP 28
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Winn-Tech sued to foreclose a mechanic's/materialman's lien against Lawson, seeking $11,014.34 plus late fees.
- Two years after filing, Lawson served a two-sentence offer of judgment expressly “pursuant to 12 O.S. §1101” offering $9,000, with a five-day acceptance window.
- Winn-Tech accepted the §1101 offer within five days and judgment for $9,000 was entered; the trial court reserved attorney fees for later determination.
- Winn-Tech moved for prevailing-party attorney fees under 12 O.S. §936 and 42 O.S. §176, submitting detailed time records and requesting $8,520 plus a bonus; Lawson argued §1101.1 barred fee recovery and that the amount was unreasonable.
- The trial court concluded §1101.1 did not apply to offers made under §1101, found Winn-Tech the prevailing party, awarded fees for 34.6 hours at $200/hr ($6,920), and denied Lawson’s objections to reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1101.1 precludes recovery of prevailing-party attorney fees when the defendant’s offer was made under §1101 | Winn‑Tech: Acceptance of the §1101 offer made it the prevailing party entitled to statutory fees under §936 and §176 | Lawson: §1101.1 applies to all post‑1995 civil actions and its terms (offer deemed to include fees/costs) preclude Winn‑Tech’s fee recovery | Court: §1101 and §1101.1 are distinct; because the offer was made under §1101, §1101.1 does not apply and Winn‑Tech may recover fees under applicable statutes |
| Whether a plaintiff who accepts a §1101 offer is a prevailing party entitled to costs/fees under other statutes | Winn‑Tech: Acceptance makes it prevailing and eligible for attorney fees authorized by other statutes | Lawson: Acceptance under §1101 should limit recovery to costs only (citing cases interpreting §1101) | Court: Acceptance under §1101 makes plaintiff the prevailing party; fees recoverable if authorized by separate statutes (here §936 and §176) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in finding requested hours and rate reasonable | Winn‑Tech: Submitted detailed time records; hourly rate was stipulated | Lawson: Requested fees were excessive and unreasonable | Court: No abuse of discretion; 34.6 hours at $200/hr reasonable, Lawson presented no contrary evidence |
| Whether §1101 was implicitly repealed or superseded by §1101.1 | Winn‑Tech: Two statutes coexist; Legislature did not repeal §1101 | Lawson: §1101.1 "applies to all civil actions" so should control | Court: No implied repeal; statutes reconciled and given harmonious effect; §1101 remains operative when its procedures are used |
Key Cases Cited
- Finnell v. Seismic, 67 P.3d 339 (Okla. 2003) (standards for reviewing legal questions and attorney‑fee entitlement)
- Ashikian v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm’n, 188 P.3d 148 (Okla. 2008) (American Rule: fees recoverable only by statute or contract)
- State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1979) (reasonableness of attorney fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Dulan v. Johnston, 687 P.2d 1045 (Okla. 1984) (acceptance of offer under §1101 entitles plaintiff to costs and prejudgment interest)
- Wieland v. Danner Auto Supply, Inc., 695 P.2d 1332 (Okla. 1984) (plaintiff accepting §1101 offer may be entitled to attorney fees if authorized)
- Foreman v. Brewer, 149 P.3d 1083 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (distinguishing offers under §1101 and §1101.1; §1101 yields costs only absent other statutory basis)
- Mustain v. Grand River Dam Authority, 68 P.3d 991 (Okla. 2003) (presumption against implied repeal of earlier statute)
- Humphries v. Lewis, 67 P.3d 333 (Okla. 2003) (statutory construction principles and de novo review of legal questions)