- 28 -
overall situation, where respondent made errors in drafting the
stipulation document and where concessions resulting from
petitioner’ motion significantly decreased the deficiencies, we
are satisfied that any protraction of the proceedings caused by
petitioners’ motion was not “unreasonable” in the context of the
instant case. Sandra’s litigation costs recovery will not be
reduced on the basis of unreasonable protraction of the
proceeding.
We hold for Sandra on this issue.
D. Allocation
Sandra’s motion claims about $55,000 of combined litigation
and administration costs.
Respondent maintains that Sandra should take nothing because
she is not the prevailing party. We hold that Sandra is the
prevailing party with respect to the determination of the fraud
penalty (to the extent that the fraud penalty exceeds the
negligence penalty) against her and she is not otherwise
disqualified. Accordingly, respondent’s broad contention falls.
Sandra, on the other hand, contends that she and Michael
decided on combined representation to avoid the duplication of
expense that separate representation would have entailed.
Accordingly, she contends, every expense is no more than she
would have incurred from separate representation and so every
expense is part of the costs that should be awarded to her.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011