AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a domestic relations dispute where the Plaintiff, Blair Dunn, challenges a district court order that awarded Defendant, Lela Dunn (now Lela Hunt), attorney fees and costs totaling $7,504.78. The contention arose from a long and contentious proceeding, particularly around a medical dispute concerning a child's surgery, which the Plaintiff initially objected to but later did not oppose.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the district court judge improperly raised the issue of fees on her own without a request from the Defendant, claimed the successor judge who made the fee award did not certify familiarity with the case, and contended that the Defendant did not prevail in the medical dispute since he did not object to the child's surgery.
• Defendant: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court judge erred by raising the issue of attorney fees on her own without a request from the Defendant.
• Whether the successor judge was required to certify her familiarity with the case before making the fee award.
• Whether the Defendant's lack of prevailing in the medical dispute affected the appropriateness of the attorney fees award.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order awarding Defendant attorney fees and costs.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge, JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge concurring):
  The Court found no error in the district court judge's decision to raise the issue of attorney fees on her own, considering the discretion allowed under Section 40-4-7(A) and the contentious nature of the proceedings (para 3).
  The Plaintiff waived the challenge to the successor judge's familiarity with the case by engaging in proceedings without objection, and the fee order indicated the judge's familiarity (para 3).
  Despite the Plaintiff's argument to the contrary, evidence showed the Plaintiff initially objected to the medical care and thereafter frustrated the process, justifying the fee award. The district court considered relevant factors, including the disparity of resources, prior settlement offers, total fees and costs, and success on the merits, which supported making the award (para 3).