Utah Court of Appeals
When does the Reciprocal Attorney Fees statute override contract terms? Jones v. Riche Explained
Summary
The Joneses sued the Riches for breach of a rental agreement and waste. The jury found the Riches breached the contract and committed willful waste, awarding the Joneses $1,662 in damages. Despite the contract’s provision requiring the defaulting party to pay attorney fees, the trial court awarded attorney fees to the Riches as the prevailing party under the Reciprocal Attorney Fees statute.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Kalynn Jones and Charles Jones, doing business as CJ’s Rentals, sued Tammie and Paul Riche for breach of a rental agreement and waste. The jury found that the Riches breached the rental contract and committed willful waste, awarding the Joneses $1,662 in damages, which the trial court properly trebled to $4,986 under the waste statute. However, the trial court then awarded attorney fees to the Riches as the “prevailing party” under Utah’s Reciprocal Attorney Fees statute, despite the contract’s provision requiring the defaulting party to pay fees.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the trial court could apply the Reciprocal Attorney Fees statute to award fees to a prevailing party when the contract contained a specific bilateral attorney fee provision requiring the defaulting party to pay fees. The rental agreement stated that “in the event of default by either party under this Agreement, the defaulting party shall pay all costs and expenses of enforcing the same, including reasonable attorney’s fees.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that courts must strictly enforce contractual attorney fee provisions and cannot override them with the Reciprocal Attorney Fees statute when the contract contains bilateral fee provisions. The court distinguished this case from Bilanzich v. Lonetti, explaining that the Reciprocal Attorney Fees statute applies only when contracts create “unequal exposure to the risk of contractual liability for attorney fees.” Here, the contract provision cut both ways—either party could be the defaulting party required to pay fees.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah courts will strictly enforce bilateral attorney fee provisions rather than applying statutory prevailing party standards. When a contract requires the defaulting party to pay fees regardless of which party defaults, the sole criterion for fee recovery is proving the other party’s default, not prevailing party status. Practitioners should carefully analyze whether fee provisions are one-sided or bilateral when determining the applicable legal standard.
Case Details
Case Name
Jones v. Riche
Citation
2009 UT App 196
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20080464-CA
Date Decided
July 23, 2009
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
When a contract contains a bilateral attorney fee provision requiring the defaulting party to pay fees, courts must strictly enforce the contractual terms and cannot award fees to the prevailing party under the Reciprocal Attorney Fees statute.
Standard of Review
Correctness for matters of law including attorney fee awards
Practice Tip
When drafting or interpreting attorney fee provisions, carefully analyze whether the provision is bilateral or one-sided, as this determines whether the Reciprocal Attorney Fees statute applies or whether strict contractual enforcement governs.
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
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.