Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

T.F. James Company v. Luella Vakoch

Date: 06-08-2001

Case Number: 20010021

Judge: Sandstrom

Court: Supreme Court of Norht Dakota

Plaintiff's Attorney: Edmund G. Vinje II, Vinje Law Office, 1220 Main Avenue, Suite 100, P.O. Box 2144, Fargo, N.D. 58107-2144, for plaintiff and appellant.

Defendant's Attorney: Lawrence P. Kropp, Kropp Law Offices, 105 Tenth Street SE, Jamestown, N.D. 58401-5549, for defendant and appellee.

Description:

[1] T.F. James Company ("James") appeals from the district court's amended judgment denying James' request for attorney fees. We reverse and remand, concluding the district court abused its discretion by denying attorney fees. On remand, we direct the district court to award James reasonable attorney fees consistent with this opinion.

[2] James owns and operates the Jamestown Mall in Jamestown, North Dakota. Luella Vakoch leased space in the mall for her salon, New Images. Vakoch abandoned the lease, and James sued. At trial, the district court concluded Vakoch had breached the lease. The court held in favor of James on all claims, but the court determined the lease agreement was usurious. James appealed to this Court. We reversed, concluding the lease agreement was not usurious. T.F. James Co. v. Vakoch, 2000 ND 9, 1, 604 N.W.2d 459.

[3] In the lease, Vakoch agreed to pay James' attorney fees if she breached terms of the lease. Discussing the issue of attorney fees in the earlier appeal, we said:

James argues the district court should have awarded attorney's fees as provided in the lease. According to the lease, Vakoch was to pay for any expenses including attorney's fees expended in litigation by James if a breach by Vakoch was established. The district court declined to award James the attorney's fees for four reasons: 1) There was a legitimate issue regarding whether James may have breached the lease by allowing a third beauty shop to come into the mall; 2) the lease was usurious; 3) the fact the lease provided for recovery by the landlord if the tenant breached, but did not provide for recovery by the tenant if the landlord breached; 4) the totality of the circumstances demonstrated recovery of attorney's fees would result in an inequitable and absurd recovery by James when the court has found James subject to usury laws.

Id. at 11. We concluded, "On remand, the district court is to reconsider its decision not to award James attorney fees in light of the fact the lease is not usurious." Id. at 12. On remand, the district court denied fees, and James now appeals.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome:

Reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Unknown

Defendant's Experts:

Unknown

Comments:

None

About This Case

What was the outcome of T.F. James Company v. Luella Vakoch?

The outcome was: Reversed and remanded.

Which court heard T.F. James Company v. Luella Vakoch?

This case was heard in Supreme Court of Norht Dakota, ND. The presiding judge was Sandstrom.

Who were the attorneys in T.F. James Company v. Luella Vakoch?

Plaintiff's attorney: Edmund G. Vinje II, Vinje Law Office, 1220 Main Avenue, Suite 100, P.O. Box 2144, Fargo, N.D. 58107-2144, for plaintiff and appellant.. Defendant's attorney: Lawrence P. Kropp, Kropp Law Offices, 105 Tenth Street SE, Jamestown, N.D. 58401-5549, for defendant and appellee..

When was T.F. James Company v. Luella Vakoch decided?

This case was decided on June 8, 2001.