IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE
JULIE ANN NEYMARK, Plaintiff,
vs.
ADAM ZAKRZEWSKI, Defendant.
CASE NO. 3AN-99-6630 CIV
ORDER REGARDING ATTORNEY FEES
NEYMARK IS THE PREVAILING PARTY
Neymark sued Zakrzewski for breach of his statutory duties under a residential landlord/tenant
iled to "provide adequate and reasonable heat, ventilation, hot water, working appliances, snow
artment in a clean, safe, and reasonable repair."
The court divided these claims into two separate statutory causes of action: (1) violation of AS
(see Jury Instruction 6(a)); and (2) violation of AS 34.03.140 for improper access into the
access claim was not explicitly set forth in the Complaint, the court held that Zakrzewski was on
the Complaint and the attachments thereto.
The jury found Zakrzewski liable on both theories, awarding $775 for failure to provide essential
ages of $1275. See Verdict form. Because of the general nature of the Verdict form, there is no way
jury found to have not been supplied. Compare Jury Instruction 6(a)(emphasis added), which states
In order for the tenant, Ms. Neymark, to win her claim you must find that it is more likely true
rately or negligently failed to supply running water, reasonable amounts of hot water, reasonable
SNIPPETS:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA
NEYMARK IS THE PREVAILING PARTY
Neymark sued Zakrzewski for breach of his statutory duties under a residential
The pro per Complaint alleged that Zakrzewski failed to "provide adequate and reasonable
The court divided these claims into two separate statutory causes of action: violation of AS
Although the improper access claim was not explicitly set forth in the Complaint, the court
The jury found Zakrzewski liable on both theories, awarding $775 for failure to provide
Neymark, his tenant, you shall calculate and award Ms.
the court finds that Neymark is the prevailing party because she prevailed on both theories
the court finds that the jury's award together with attorneys fees is more favorable than
AMOUNT OF COSTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES TO WHICH NEYMARK IS ENTITLED
In any legal action brought by either party to enforce the terms hereof or relating to the
In Jackson v. Barbero, 776 P.2d 786 (Alaska 1989), the court considered the award of
1] Neymark entered into a contingent fee arrangement with her attorney which provides that
The court is disinclined to take such a step based on the importance of assuring access of
In Whalen v. Taylor, 925 P.2d 462 (Montana 1996), the Montana Supreme Court considered a case
Taylor, represented by legal services or a pro bono attorney, counterclaimed for possession,
Is Taylor entitled to attorney fees under s 70-24- 442, MCA, because he prevailed at every
A District Court may award reasonable attorney fees, along with costs and necessary
Consequently, Taylor is now the prevailing party on all issues, and, in the court's
Whalen debates the appropriateness of awarding attorney fees to legal services or pro bono
First, under s 70-24-442, MCA, the District Court is given discretion to award attorney fees
Presumably, if Montana Legal Services Association and pro bono attorneys can recoup from the
Based on the same policy reasons as set forth in Malquist, we conclude that an attorney's
If indigent plaintiffs such as Neymark were not able to enter into contingent fee agreements
|
