Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 877801 orderandopinion.pdf
Full Text
1,718 chars135 Wn.2d at 434. Lastly, the trial court must calculate the lodestar fee award “by multiplying the reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours incurred,” which the trial court may adjust up or down in “rare instances.” Id. To show that it exercised its discretion and did not unquestionably accept fee affidavits submitted by counsel, trial courts must make an adequate record upon which they base an attorney fee award. Id. at 434-35. That is, a trial court must provide articulable grounds for its attorney fee award to allow meaningful appellate review. Taliesen Corp. v. Razore Land Co., 135 Wn. App. 106, 146-47, 144 P.3d 1185 (2006); 10 For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. 87780-1-I/11 Peiffer v. Pro-Cut Concrete Cutting & Breaking Inc., 6 Wn. App. 2d 803, 833, 431 P.3d 1018 (2018). Courts must enter findings of fact and conclusion of law to establish a proper record. Mahler, 135 Wn.2d at 435. Findings need not include explicit and detailed hour-by-hour analysis of each lawyer’s time sheets, but they must articulate the relevant factors and reasons the court relied on to allow appellate review of the awarded amount. Absher Const. Co. v. Kent Sch. Dist. No. 415, 79 Wn. App. 841, 848, 917 P.2d 1086 (1995); see also Berryman, 177 Wn. App. at 658 (“The findings must show how the court resolved disputed issues of fact and the conclusions must explain the court’s analysis.”); Mayer, 102 Wn. App. at 82-83 (“Because the trial court made no findings regarding the specific challenged items, the record does not allow for a proper review of these issues.”). To provide an adequate record for review, “‘[a]n [attorney fee] award of