Can trial courts require use of specific attorney fee rules when parties elect different procedures? N.A.R. v. Marcek Explained

In N.A.R. v. Marcek, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important procedural issue regarding the calculation of attorney fees in collection cases. The decision clarifies when trial courts must honor a party’s election between two different rules for seeking attorney fees.

Background and Facts

The Marceks entered into a credit agreement with West 56th Dental that included a provision requiring them to pay “an additional 40% collection fee, and all legal fees of collection” if collection became necessary. After defaulting on $182.85 in dental fees, their account was assigned to NAR for collection. NAR filed suit seeking the principal amount plus attorney fees “pursuant to Rule 4-505.01, or as established by affidavit pursuant to Rule 4-505.” NAR filed a detailed affidavit supporting $197 in attorney fees under Rule 4-505, but the trial court denied the request, stating that attorney fees must comply with Rule 4-505.01 unless extraordinary legal work was performed.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the trial court erred by requiring NAR to seek attorney fees under Rule 4-505.01 when NAR had elected to proceed under Rule 4-505 and filed a supporting affidavit. This presented questions of statutory interpretation regarding the relationship between these two rules and a party’s right to choose between them.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals explained that Rule 4-505.01 provides a simplified fee schedule for default judgments under $5,000, while Rule 4-505 requires detailed affidavits but allows for individualized fee determinations. Importantly, Rule 4-505.01 specifically states that parties may “move the court to depart from the fees allowed” and proceed under Rule 4-505. The court found that NAR had properly elected to proceed under Rule 4-505 by filing a supporting affidavit, and the trial court could not unilaterally require use of the Rule 4-505.01 schedule.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that parties have meaningful choice in how they seek contractual attorney fees. Practitioners must clearly indicate their election in the complaint and ensure their procedures match their chosen rule. The trial court retains discretion in calculating reasonable fees under Rule 4-505 but cannot force parties into the Rule 4-505.01 schedule when they have properly elected the affidavit-based approach.