CIVIL PROCEDURE
Supreme Court of Alaska (2023)
Hannah Berg
In Bragg v. Teslow, 533 P.3d 533 (Alaska 2023), the supreme court held that an award of full attorneys’ fees is appropriate only where a claim or motion is “collectively or individually so lacking in merit that it is permissible to infer that [the non-prevailing party] or his lawyer acted in bad faith or engaged in vexatious litigation.” (Id. at 539). The Braggs filed a lawsuit against Teslow, accusing him of encroachment and timber trespass, specifically alleging the unauthorized cutting down of a stand of forty mature birch trees. (Id. at 535). Holding that the Braggs engaged in bad-faith and vexatious conduct, the trial court granted Teslow’s unopposed motion for summary judgment and awarded him full attorneys’ fees. (Id. at 537, 539). Subsequent motions for reconsideration and relief from judgment by the Braggs were denied, and the court further granted Teslow’s motion for enhanced attorneys’ fees incurred in opposing the motion for relief from judgment. (Id. at 537). On appeal, the supreme court determined that the Braggs did not have improper purpose in filing the lawsuit because they initially believed their claims had merit. (Id. at 540). The supreme court emphasized that there is a meaningful difference between unsuccessful and baseless claims. (Id.). Accordingly, because the supreme court found the Braggs’ claim was not meritless, it vacated the award of full attorneys’ fees to Teslow. (Id. at 541). The supreme court vacated and remanded the superior court’s award of full attorneys’ fees, holding that an unsuccessful claim with merit does not warrant such an award. (Id. at 539).
