Hall v. Andow
Docket: NO. 7173; CIVIL NO. 4680
Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals; October 20, 1981; Hawaii; State Appellate Court
An appeal was made by the plaintiff-appellant from a judgment that granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendant-appellee and an order that taxed costs and attorney’s fees. The notice of appeal did not explicitly mention the order taxing costs and fees; however, its simultaneous filing with that order allowed for its consideration as part of the appeal. The court upheld the directed verdict but reversed the order for attorney’s fees. The plaintiff entered into a framing subcontract with the defendant on December 18, 1975, which required the subcontractor to be bound by the terms of the underlying contract between the owner and the contractor. The contractor's contract, which was incomplete and undated, stipulated that the owner must complete financial arrangements within a specified timeframe for the contract to be valid. The contractor could only commence construction upon receiving confirmation of these arrangements. If the owner failed to secure financing, the contract would be void. At trial, it was unclear whether the subcontractor had seen the construction contract or was informed of the financing condition. However, the subcontractor's testimony indicated an awareness of the need for the governor's signature for the project to proceed, which had not been obtained at the time he signed the subcontract. Consequently, it was determined that the subcontractor understood the contingency of his contract being contingent on the contractor's contract, which was never executed through no fault of the contractor. Therefore, the directed verdict was deemed appropriate. Regarding attorney’s fees, the subcontract did not contain a provision for such fees. The agreement to be bound by the contractor-owner contract did not extend to the attorney’s fees clause, which applied only to actions on that contract. Since this suit was based on the subcontract, and no applicable agreement or statute allowed for attorney's fees in this context, the court erred in awarding them. While some costs were deemed taxable, others were not properly allowable. The decision affirmed the directed verdict, reversed the award of attorney’s fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.