THE COURT: When I fixed attorneys' fees, after trial in the original action in this case,
as pointed out by the court of appeals, I was clearly in error in reducing the amount of
the award for attorneys' fees principally spent pursuing an unsuccessful summary judgment.
Now, this matter, which seemed at the outset to be a very simple one -- first-time home
buyer puts up $5,001 earnest money to buy a house. The earnest money is improperly
prepared by the John L. Scott agent. The house has water in the basement. The problem is
not corrected. She requests her money back and John L. Scott, unlike any other real estate
agency I am familiar with, takes the unique action of deciding whether or not she gets it
back, ignoring their obvious conflict of interest because, if they decide in favor of the
seller of the property, which they did in this case, their agent gets half of the earnest
money. Their office shares in that, a clear conflict of interest which they totally
ignored and gave little attention to in the court.
Well, going back, the standard way that most real estate agents handle this, we see it all
the time, if they can't get both the buyer and the seller to sign a rescission agreement,
they simply file a very simple, quick action, interplead the money into the superior court
and say, here, you two people, here is the money, you go fight about it, we are out of it,
and the court will decide where the money goes. We see those all the time. They are simple
actions that real estate offices don't get involved in after they have taken that first
step to deposit the money with the Court, with the interpleader pleadings.
But, no, this $5,001 case has now gone through a trial and an appeal to the court of
appeals and an appeal to the Supreme Court. John L. Scott, with the exception of
prevailing in the court of appeals to the extent that there was only one consumer
protection violation permitted to be compensated for, lost 100 percent.
Furthermore, the testimony at trial, as pointed out by the court of appeals, pointed
out that they had been performing this unreasonable activity in what was estimated to be
hundreds of other cases. So, what seemed like a simple case to begin with is a case of
considerable importance. Cora Edmonds led the way. I have no idea whether John L. Scott
has changed its practice, but it's clear that there will be others who will challenge it
if they have not.
Reviewing all of Mr. Hathaway's attorneys fee bills, using the lode star method, I find
that there is no time spent on work done for unsuccessful claims or irrelevant claims.
This was a difficult case; difficult to find the facts and present them, difficult in the
battle that John L. Scott put up all the way along. As outlined by Mr. Hathaway, it
involved substantial risks on the part of the plaintiff. She could have just said, at the
beginning, oh, it's only five thousand bucks, I can't hang myself on the line, so to
speak, for all of these additional risks when the amount in controversy is only $5,000.
But she did. So, I am going to award 100 percent of the attorneys' fees that were prayed
for and are set forth on the illustrative exhibit handed up by Mr. Hathaway.
The idea that the Court cannot award prejudgment interest on either the attorneys fees
and the principal judgment is totally without merit. It would be correct if I were going
to reduce those fees, but I am not. I'm going to increase them. So, I will sign the
judgment in the form proposed by Mr. Hathaway, most recently proposed, after he. removed
the $610 of additional costs. So, a matter that began as a $5,000 case ends up $154,000
case.