Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Sardam v. Morford, 756 P.2d 174 (1988)

Citation
Sardam v. Morford, 756 P.2d 174 (1988)
Parent Document
Sardam v. Morford, 756 P.2d 174 (1988)
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Effective Date
1988-06-30

Other Sections in This Document (50)

Full Text

687 chars
Ms. Sardam argues the Superior Court was correct in concluding the trial court actually ruled there was no "prevailing party". The Superior Court's conclusion is incorrect for two reasons: First, a review of the record shows the trial court found Ms. Morford to be the "prevailing party". Second, the trial court awarded costs to Ms. Morford, presumably pursuant to RCW 4.84.030, which provides for costs to the "prevailing party". "The definition of who is a 'prevailing party' for an award of costs should be the same in determining the 'prevailing party' for an award of attorney's fees." Stott v. Cervantes, 23 Wn. App. 346, 348, 595 P.2d 563 (1979). --- 030concurrence by Munson ---