attorney fees – Page 4

An attorney represented a Native corporation in litigation nearly three decades ago. The corporation disputed the attorney’s claim for fees, and in 1995, after the attorney’s death, the superior court entered judgment on an arbitration award of nearly $800,000 to the attorney’s law firm, then represented by the attorney’s son. The corporation paid eight installments on the judgment but eventually stopped paying, citing financial difficulties. The law firm sought a writ of execution for the unpaid balance, and the writ was granted. The corporation appealed but under threat of the writ paid $643,760 while the appeal was pending. In a 2013 opinion we held the writ invalid and required the firm to repay the $643,760.

The corporation was never repaid. The original law firm moved its assets to a new firm and sought a stay of execution, averring that the original firm now lacked the funds necessary for repayment. The corporation sued the original firm, the successor firm, and the son for breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, conspiracy to fraudulently convey assets, violations of the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), unjust enrichment, and punitive damages. The firm counterclaimed, seeking recovery in quantum meruit for attorney’s fees it claimed were still owing for its original representation of the corporation.

The superior court granted summary judgment for the corporation on the law firm’s quantum meruit claim and, following trial, found that the son and both law firms fraudulently conveyed assets and were liable for treble damages under the UTPA. The son and the law firms appeal. They argue that the superior court erred in these ways: (1) holding that the quantum meruit claim was barred by res judicata; (2) holding the defendants liable for fraudulent conveyance;(3) awarding damages under the UTPA; and (4) making mistakes in the form of judgment and award of costs. But seeing no error or abuse of discretion in the superior court’s decision of most of these issues, we affirm its judgment, with one exception. We remand for reconsideration of whether all three defendants are liable for prejudgment interest from the same date.

Washington COA Decides Section 81 Matter Involving Nooksack Business Corp.

April 4, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Outsource Services Management v. Nooksack Business Corp.:

Unpublished Opinion

An excerpt:

The Nooksack Business Corporation (NBC) borrowed more than $15 million to finance construction of and improvements to a casino on Nooksack Indian Tribe land. 25 U.S.C. § 81(b) (Section 81) requires preapproval by the Secretary of the Interior for any agreement or contract that “encumbers” tribal land. NBC’s limited recourse loan is secured by a pledge of revenue to the lender. But because the lender’s right to collect pledged revenues does not deprive the tribe of its exclusive proprietary control of its land, the loan agreements do not encumber tribal land for purposes of Section 81.

Under the broad language of the loan agreements, the lender may execute upon future revenues and rents whether or not the facilities are used as a casino. Additionally, merger does not preclude the lender from executing upon assets pledged as security for the loan. And, consistent with our Supreme Court’s decision in a prior appeal between the lender and NBC, the state court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the lender’s right to enforce its judgment.

The loan agreement provides for attorney fees to the prevailing party. Because the lender is the prevailing party, it is entitled, to attorney fees on appeal.

Briefs: