Human Resources v. BenePro

Human Resources v. BenePro

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Human Resources Consulting Group, a Utah corporation,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

BenePro USA, Inc., an Idaho corporation,

Defendant and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication
 

Case No. 20040781-CA
 

F I L E D
(December 16, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 474

 

-----

Fourth District, Provo Department

The Honorable James R. Taylor

Attorneys: Jonathan A. Cavender, Orem, for Appellant

Vincent C. Rampton and Ross I. Romero, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

    Human Resources Consulting Group (HRCG) appeals the award of attorney fees entered in favor of BenePro USA, Inc. (BenePro) as the prevailing party in the proceedings below. This case is before the court on BenePro's motion for summary disposition.

    HRCG's sole argument on appeal is that the district court did not make sufficient findings under R.T. Nielson Co. v. Cook, 2002 UT 11, 40 P.3d 1119, to determine a "prevailing party" for purposes of attorney fees. This argument is belied by the record and Utah case law.

    "Which party is the prevailing party is an appropriate question for the trial court. This question depends, to a large measure, on the context of each case, and, therefore, it is appropriate to leave this determination to the sound discretion of the trial court." Id., at ¶25; see also Carlson Distrib. Co. v. Salt Lake Brewing Co., L.C., 2004 UT App 227,¶16, 95 P.3d 1171 ("Whether a party is the prevailing party in an action is a decision left to the sound discretion of the trial court and reviewed for an abuse of discretion.").

    The district court ruled that BenePro was the prevailing party based upon the contract at issue. This decision was announced and thoroughly explained in a memorandum decision, in findings and conclusions, and in a ruling relating to attorney fees. In no way were the findings insufficient. The district court also ruled that attorney fees were properly granted to BenePro because "the core issue was the demand by [HRCG] for payment in full for all programs identified in the contract," which BenePro successfully defended against. The district court's analysis "falls well within the discretion afforded to it" under Utah law. Carlson Distrib. Co., 2004 UT App 227 at ¶40.

    Finally, BenePro seeks attorney fees on appeal. BenePro is entitled to its fees because it is the prevailing party on appeal. See Valcarce v. Fitzgerald, 961 P.2d 305, 319 (Utah 1998) ("When a party who received attorney fees below prevails on appeal, the party is also entitled to fees reasonably incurred on appeal."). Accordingly, we remand for a determination of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in this appeal.

    The judgment of the district court is otherwise affirmed.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge