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 judgment for $9,000 and giving five days to accept.
- Winn-Tech accepted within five days; judgment for $9,000 was entered and attorney-fee issues were reserved for later determination.
- Winn-Tech moved for attorney fees under 12 O.S. §936 and 42 O.S. §176, submitting detailed time records and seeking $8,520 plus a $3,408 bonus; the reasonableness of the hourly rate ($200) was stipulated.
- The trial court awarded Winn-Tech $6,920 (34.6 hours × $200), finding §1101.1 inapplicable because Lawson’s offer invoked §1101 only.
- Lawson appealed, arguing §1101.1 precluded any recovery of attorney fees and that the fee award was unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1101.1 precludes prevailing-party attorney fees when the defendant’s offer was made under §1101 | Winn-Tech: Acceptance under §1101 makes Winn-Tech prevailing party entitled to fees under statutes authorizing fees (12 O.S. §936 and 42 O.S. §176) | Lawson: §1101.1 applies to all civil actions and, by its terms, prevents recovery of separate attorney fees beyond an inclusive offer-of-judgment regime | Court: §1101 and §1101.1 are distinct; because defendant’s offer was made under §1101, §1101.1 does not apply and Winn‑Tech may recover statutory attorney fees |
| Whether §1101 was implicitly repealed or superseded by §1101.1 | Winn-Tech: Both statutes co-exist; Legislature did not repeal §1101 | Lawson: §1101.1’s broad applicability implies it governs offers post‑effective date | Court: No implied repeal; statutes harmonized and both retained effect when their distinct procedures are used |
| Whether Winn‑Tech is the prevailing party entitled to fees | Winn-Tech: Acceptance of offer makes it prevailing party | Lawson: Contested effect of offer statute choice on fee entitlement | Court: Acceptance of offer under §1101 made Winn‑Tech the prevailing party; statutory fee provisions apply |
| Whether the fee award was unreasonable | Winn-Tech: Submitted detailed time records; $200/hour stipulated; 34.6 hours reasonable | Lawson: Argued fees were excessive (but offered no contrary evidence) | Court: No abuse of discretion; fee award upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Finnell v. Seismic, 67 P.3d 339 (Okla. 2003) (standards for appellate review of legal questions and attorney‑fee entitlement)
- Mustain v. Grand River Dam Authority, 68 P.3d 991 (Okla. 2003) (courts will not presume repeal of an earlier statute absent express terms)
- Humphries v. Lewis, 67 P.3d 333 (Okla. 2003) (statutory construction principles; harmonize statutes addressing same subject)
- Dulan v. Johnston, 687 P.2d 1045 (Okla. 1984) (plaintiff accepting offer under §1101 may recover 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 where statute authorizes)
- Foreman v. Brewer, 149 P.3d 1083 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006) (distinction between offers under §1101 and §1101.1; §1101 limited to costs when §1101.1 rights not invoked)
- Ashikian v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Horse Racing Comm’n, 188 P.3d 148 (Okla. 2008) (American Rule: attorney fees recoverable only where statute or contract authorizes)
- State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 598 P.2d 659 (Okla. 1979) (reasonableness of fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)