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

631 chars
[1] However, there is considerable authority that, where both parties prevail on major issues, neither is entitled to attorney fees. McGary v. Westlake Investors, 99 Wn.2d 280, 661 P.2d 971 (1983); Tallman v. Durussel, 44 Wn. App. 181, 721 P.2d 985, review denied, 106 Wn.2d 1013 (1986); Rowe v. Floyd, 29 Wn. App. 532, 629 P.2d 925 (1981). Here, each party successfully defended against a *912 major claim by the other. It would be inequitable to award substantial fees in these circumstances, particularly where the money judgment involved actually was simply a recognition that Ms. Morford was owed a portion of her own deposit.