Wohl v. City of Missoula
2014 MT 310
Mont.2014Background
- Landowners along South Avenue contested City’s taking and width of right-of-way for improvements.
- District Court found improvements required land beyond right-of-way and awarded damages.
- Missoula v. Wohl case (Wohl I) remanded for recalculation of damages; affirmed some aspects and rejected others.
- Wohl I held appellate fees could be awarded under constitutional provisions and statutes but did not decide on appellate attorney fees for the appeal itself.
- Landowners sought appellate attorney’s fees and costs on remand; City opposed, arguing Wohl I denied appellate fees and Rule 19(3) governed costs.
- District Court on remand awarded appellate attorney’s fees of $33,406.11 and appellate costs of $1,697.37; City appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did district court err in awarding appellate attorney’s fees? | Landowners prevailed on appeal and are entitled to appellate fees under Article II, Section 29 and related authority. | Wohl I denied appellate fees; law-of-the-case or Rule 19(3) foreclose such an award on remand. | Yes; the award was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Galt v. State, 230 Mont. 327 (1988) (just compensation includes necessary litigation expenses)
- Rauser v. Toston Irrigation Dist., 172 Mont. 530 (1977) (constitutional requirement for attorney fees in condemnation when landowner prevails)
- Mont. Dept. of Hwys. v. McGuckin, 242 Mont. 81 (1990) (fees for fees generally disallowed)
- O’Brien v. Great N. Ry. Co., 148 Mont. 429 (1966) (law-of-the-case concept described)
- Union Oil Co. v. Dist. Court, 160 Mont. 229 (1972) (denial of merits does not imply law-of-the-case on appeal)
- Wohl v. City of Missoula, 369 Mont. 108 (2013) (two-step standard for attorney’s fees; remand on damages and fees)