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 monthly late fees.
- Two years after filing, Lawson served a two-sentence offer of judgment for $9,000 that cited 12 O.S. §1101 and gave five days to accept.
- Winn-Tech accepted within five days; a judgment for $9,000 was entered and the attorney-fee issue was reserved.
- Winn-Tech then moved for prevailing-party attorney fees under 12 O.S. §936 and 42 O.S. §176, seeking $8,520 plus a bonus; detailed time records supported the request.
- The trial court found §1101.1 did not apply because the offer was made under §1101, awarded fees for 34.6 hours at $200/hr ($6,920), and denied Lawson's challenge to fee reasonableness.
- Lawson appealed, arguing §1101.1 precludes recovery of any attorney fees when an offer of judgment is made after the effective date of that statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1101.1 precludes a plaintiff who accepts a defendant's offer of judgment made under 12 O.S. §1101 from recovering prevailing-party attorney fees | Winn-Tech: Acceptance under §1101 makes it the prevailing party and it may recover attorney fees where authorized by statute (here §§936 and 176) | Lawson: §1101.1 (applicable to actions filed after its effective date) governs offers and deems offers inclusive of fees, thereby precluding Winn-Tech from separately recovering fees | 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 authorized by other statutes |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $6,920 in attorney fees | Winn-Tech: Submitted detailed time records and stipulated reasonableness of $200/hr; sought fees for necessary work | Lawson: Requested fees were excessive/unreasonable (offered no contrary evidence at hearing) | Court: No abuse of discretion; award affirmed given records and lack of contradictory evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Finnell v. Seismic, 67 P.3d 339 (Okla. 2003) (review of entitlement to attorney fees is a legal question reviewed de novo)
- Ashikian v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm'n, 188 P.3d 148 (Okla. 2008) (under the American Rule, attorney fees are recoverable only by statute or contract)
- 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) (plaintiff accepting §1101 offer entitled 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 when authorized by statute)
- Foreman v. Brewer, 149 P.3d 1083 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (§1101 and §1101.1 are distinct procedures with different consequences)
- Mustain v. Grand River Dam Authority, 68 P.3d 991 (Okla. 2003) (courts will not presume repeal of an earlier statute absent express language)
- Humphries v. Lewis, 67 P.3d 333 (Okla. 2003) (statutory construction aims to give effect to legislative intent and harmonize statutes)