Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Quality Food Centers v. MARY JEWELL T, LLC
Citation: 142 P.3d 206Docket: 56674-1-I
Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; August 28, 2006; Washington; State Appellate Court
Quality Food Centers (QFC) initiated a lawsuit against Mary Jewell T, LLC (MJT) for alleged breach of their lease agreement, claiming MJT allowed another tenant to operate improperly. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of MJT. Subsequently, MJT sought to recover attorney fees based on the lease's provisions and RCW 4.84.330, which states that the prevailing party in a contract dispute is entitled to attorney fees. The lease stipulated that the breaching party must pay the other party's reasonable attorney fees incurred due to a breach. QFC contested the applicability of RCW 4.84.330, arguing that the lease’s attorney fees provision was reciprocal. However, the court determined that the lease’s attorney fees provision was unilateral, activating RCW 4.84.330. Consequently, MJT, as the prevailing party, is entitled to an award of attorney fees, leading to a reversal of the trial court's denial and a remand for the fee award. RCW 4.84.330 mandates that unilateral attorney fee provisions be interpreted bilaterally. Courts review the interpretation of unambiguous contracts and statutes de novo. Although the amount of fees awarded under RCW 4.84.330 is subject to abuse of discretion review, the statute requires an award of fees when applicable. QFC contends that the statute's reference to "one of the parties" implies it only applies when a specific party is designated, claiming the lease's provision for potential fee recovery by either party renders it bilateral. However, MJT argues that the statute applies because the lease's fee provision is unilateral—only the non-breaching party can recover fees, regardless of whether the landlord or tenant is accused of breach. This one-sided nature triggers RCW 4.84.330, which necessitates that either both parties have access to fee recovery or neither does, preventing contractual circumvention of this requirement. Consequently, MJT is entitled to recover its fees and costs for successfully defending against the breach of lease claim. Regarding attorney fees on appeal, MJT's request is granted under RAP 18.1 and RCW 4.84.330, as the applicable law allows for such recovery. The court orders a reversal and remand to the trial court for the determination of MJT's reasonable attorney fees incurred both below and on appeal. Notably, MJT had previously brought counterclaims against QFC but later dismissed them without prejudice.