Utah Court of Appeals

Can trial courts award appellate attorney fees on remand? Anderson v. Thompson Explained

2010 UT App 359
20090892-CA
December 16, 2010
Reversed

Summary

Wife appealed the trial court’s award of Husband’s appellate attorney fees following remand from a prior appeal. The appellate court had remanded for determination of attorney fees generally but did not explicitly address appellate fees. The court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court exceeded its authority.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important jurisdictional question in Anderson v. Thompson, clarifying when trial courts have authority to award appellate attorney fees following remand from an appellate court.

Background and Facts

This case arose from a domestic relations dispute with multiple appeals. In a prior appeal, Anderson II, the court of appeals remanded to the district court “to determine if an award of costs and attorney fees should be awarded to Husband and, if so, to determine the amount.” On remand, the trial court awarded both trial-level and appellate attorney fees to Husband. Wife appealed only the appellate attorney fee award.

Key Legal Issue

The narrow issue was whether the trial court had authority to award appellate attorney fees given the language in the remand instructions. The court reviewed this question of law for correctness, examining whether the district court properly complied with the appellate court’s mandate.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court established a clear rule: trial courts cannot award appellate attorney fees absent an explicit directive from the appellate court. The court emphasized that “[a] trial court does not have the authority to award appellate attorney fees and costs absent an explicit directive from the appellate court.” Since the Anderson II court did not explicitly address appellate fees, the trial court exceeded its authority. The court noted that parties seeking appellate attorney fees should file a Rule 23 motion with the appellate court.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies the proper procedure for seeking appellate attorney fees. Practitioners cannot rely on general remand language about attorney fees to obtain appellate fee awards. Instead, they must specifically request appellate fees through a Rule 23 motion with the appellate court that decided the appeal. The decision reinforces the principle that appellate attorney fee determinations remain the sole prerogative of appellate courts.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Anderson v. Thompson

Citation

2010 UT App 359

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

20090892-CA

Date Decided

December 16, 2010

Outcome

Reversed

Holding

A trial court lacks authority to award appellate attorney fees absent an explicit directive from the appellate court.

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of law regarding whether a district court complied with an appellate court mandate

Practice Tip

When seeking appellate attorney fees, file a Rule 23 motion with the appellate court rather than relying on general remand language about attorney fees.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Taylor v. Department of Commerce

    February 12, 1998

    The Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing properly revoked a veterinarian’s license based on substantial evidence of gross incompetence and gross negligence in treating multiple animals.
    • Administrative Appeals
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Macfarlane v. CSRO

    August 1, 2019

    The Career Service Review Office properly upheld DPS’s termination of a POST officer for dishonesty and failure to cooperate with another law enforcement agency’s investigation.
    • Administrative Appeals
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.