Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong and Associate Justice Lourdes Materne and Associate Justice Alexandra F. Foster in an opinion order yesterday affirmed the Trial Division’s order of cost and attorney’s fees to Hermana Umetaro, owner of construction firm Umetaro & Sons Company.
The Supreme Court stated in a 5-pages order that Olsingch Yalap has not shown that he was entitled to make legal arguments in opposition to a fee accounting after liability had already been established.The Justices stated in their order that Yalap had an opportunity to make his argument against awarding of cost in his motion in opposition to Umetaro’s request for fee but he chose not to object to the request at the proper time.Umetaro’s motion indicated that she was seeking cost as well as fees but Yalap chose not to object.Yalap sued Umetaro for damages due to the faulty construction of his home by Umetaro & Sons Company.The firm was owned by Umetaro’s late husband Steve Umetaro. When Steve Umetaro died, the ownership was transferred to Hermana Umetaro.On March 10, 2008, after the trial, the court issued a decision and granted judgment in favor of Hermana Umetaro.The Trial Division determined that Hermana had no ownership of the firm at the time of the contract and was not a party to the contract.Hermana Umetaro filed a motion for costs and attorney’s fees.The court granted the motion and awarded her $3,967.75 of costs and fees based upon the affidavit and other evidence setting forth the fees and costs.Yalap appealed and argued that the Trial Court erred in awarding the costs and attorney’s fees to Umetaro.Yalap argued that Umetaro cannot reap benefits from the contract to which she was not a party and that Umetaro did not provide a brief to support her claim.The Supreme Court in denying the appeal stated that Yalap’s failure to object to the award of cost was harmless.The Justices stated in their order that “while the contract does not support an award of costs, the law, ROP R. Civ. P. 54 (d)(1) allows for an award of costs to the prevailing party as a matter of course.”“Although the trial court’s decision does not explain that the award of costs was justified by statute, while the award of fees was based upon the contractual language, it was not error to award cost to Appellee (Umetaro),”the Justices stated in their order.
