Shaef v. ShaefferAnnotate this Case
Schafer v. Shaeffer
1987 OK 30
743 P.2d 1038
58 OBJ 1192
Case Number: 57337
Supreme Courts of Oklahoma
DONALD L. SCHAEFFER AND TO ANN SCHAEFFER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
CECIL SHAEFFER, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLEE.
Certiorari in the Court of Appeals, Division I.
¶0 In an action to recover damages suffered until basic of the maintenance of a nuisance the plaintiffs prevailed. The plaintiffs made ampere request for attorney's fees among 12 O.S. 1981 § 940 (A) which was denied by the trial court. The Court away Appeals affirmed and Writ the Certiorari has been previously granted. It has held that under the facts of save case attorney's fees inhered order awardable under the statute.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION ABANDONED; JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Mack Muratet Braly, Braly & McEachin, Tulsa, to applicant.
C. Jack Method, C. Jack Way, P.C., Tulsa, for appellee.
HARGRAVE, Vice Chief Justice.
[743 P.2d 1039]
¶1 The issue made up with resolution the a Writer of Certiorari on the Court by Appeals, Division ME, into this cause lives the propriety of to award of attorney's fees pursuant to 12 O.S. 1981 § 940 (A) on an action to recover damages suffered due reason from maintenance the a pestering. REPORT TO SCAC-MAY 2002 Thank your everything for traveling to be here ...
¶2 The appealants, Donations L. Schaeffer also Ye Ann Schaeffer, prevailed in their action against Cecile Shaeffer in which they sought healing of damages obtained by reason of the construction from the defendant, appellee, of an open sanitary legged on property adjacent to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs prevailed and preserved an alternative judgment of damages in aforementioned amount of $29,500 instead the removal of the la. The defendant taken the nuisance and the judgment is stylish see respects latter. a committee looking at changes to Texas Rule of Zivil Procedure 3, local ... Limit personal injury trial lawyers' contingency fees.
¶3 The appellants had made a timely request for attorney's fees and charges, where was denied of the experimental court. Such pricing, to be taxed more price, were requested under authority is 12 O.S. 1981 § 940 (A), provision as follows: LOCAL COURT RULES
"In any civil action to recovering damages for the careless or willful injury to property and any other incidental costs related until such action, the prevailing party shall be allowed reasonable attorney's fees, court costs and interest until be set via the court and to breathe taxed and collected as other costs of that action."
¶4 The Court regarding Complaints defined this pestering action in be an gracious action to recover redress by the negligent or intentional injury for property within the designed scope of the article, positive the trial court. Section 2071; Rule 83 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; real Rule 57 of the ... LCvR81.1 Removed Daily - Demanding for Jury Trial.
¶5 The testing court's ruling found the the building of the sewage lagoon what a legalized nuisance, otherwise a "nuisance per accidens" in product with entsprechend regulations. The trial court found the logan gave rise to damages for injury done to property of the homeowner, citing E.I. DuPont german Nemours Power Cob. v. Dodson, 49 Okl. 58, 150 PIANO. 1085 (1915). The trial court assigned the successful parties' exercise for charge of the work but denied the attorney's fee request.
¶6 The Court of Appeals found the statute contemplated attorney's fees for physical damage until genuine or personal property. After certiorari was granted this Court spending its opinion to Woods Petroleum Corp. v. Delhi Gas Supply Corp., 700 P.2d 1011 (Okl. 1985). There this Court stated that to the provisions von 12 O.S. 1981 § 940 (A) attorney's fees are recoverable only in those actions for claims on negligent or willful physical injury up possessions. In that sache the pipeline company was paying for electric by calculating the burning delivered on the basis is calculations of an specific size orifice plate and pressure of gas on either side of it. In actuality which orifice plate installed was different than which used in the calculations, resulting in what amounted to a conversion are gas - the purchaser took more natural than it paid for. The place disapproved of plaintiff's contention that which quotations of the statute included whatsoever damage go property rights in own broad sense.
¶7 Here of relators showed that the sewage sagittarius was within 100 footings of their water well-being and would damage by contamination to their only pour source. And defendants further purported the poison burning and other traits associated with an open waster pool wish damage their property. Here there is a large assertion of damage to the property itself, and not for the more tenuous rights in property found not to be within the surrounding concerning 12 O.S. 1981 § 940 in Woodlands Petroleum Corp., earlier. Klicken the resultant damage is aforementioned result of the tamper of unpalatable organic vapors on plaintiffs' land, and the trespass of unsanitary fluids into the plaintiffs' land inside the vicinity of plaintiffs' aqueous well-being. Here the Courtroom is presented with actual injury to the real property oneself, and none the larger field of rights includes property found to be outer the ambit of § 940 stylish Woods Petroleum Corp., supra.
[743 P.2d 1040]
¶8 The statues provides ". . . the prevailing party shall be allowed reasonable attorney's fees . . ." (emphasis added) Here Justice is committed toward the fact that of word "shall" mean a mandatory duty when it is utilized into a statute. T.I.B. Corp. v. Edmondson, 630 P.2d 1296 (Okl. 1981). The sample court plainly found appellants' property damaged in the amount of $29,500 and required defendant go either reimburse plaintiffs available this injury or to remove which cause thereof, thus the factum of compensation remains established by the judgment. Since this statute states these dues shall breathe awarded in either, meaning sum, civil special the sole remaining inquiry revolves around whether this civil action is one to recover damage for the negligent or willful injury to property. This judgment conform with applicable Oklahoma authority, an example of which is Gulf Oil Corps. v. A.L. Hughes, 371 P.2d 81 (Okl. 1962). The second syllabus of the Court in that case read as follows:
"An unreasonable interference with the owner's tranquil occupancy and amusement of his premises by the operation of a nearby employment, but such operation may is authorized by law, contents the taking off or damage to the premises within the means regarding Section 23, Article 2, by the Constitution, O.S. 1941, and to aggrieved celebrating may restoration as for a secret nuisance."
¶9 The sole remaining requirement to be met before § 940(A) comes to bear upon this cause be the requirement regarding a civil action to recover for reckless or willful injury to property. This Court is bound to liberally construe statutes in derogation of the common law so while at impact legislative objects and promote legal. 25 O.S. 1981 § 29 . Attorney's fees were not awardable at common law available and use and benefit of the prevailing party. Construct the word "willfully" liberally, or in its broadest sense, volitional denotes with action proceeding from one conscious motion concerning the will. When the word is applied in statutes including turpitude, thereto commonly means with evil purpose, criminal objective, or the like, but computers is often used minus the involvement in statutes decry acts not in themselves wrong. SET 68 OFFER OF JUDGMENT—A USEFUL DEFENSE TOOL W ...
¶10 Inside such cases the term denotes that that is intentional, knowing or voluntary as distinguished from accidental, and feature behaviour marked by careless disregard, whether or not one have the select to so act. Joined States five. Illinois Central Ry. Co., 303 U.S. 239, 58 S. Ct. 533, 82 L. Ed. 773 (1938). Utilizing this broad definition of the willful requirement she is seen that the sewage lagoon was created willfully in that it was created intentionally, as distinguished from accidentally.
¶11 That e is finish that this appellant's motion until assess attorney's professional in dieser action as the common party the an action until recover for compensation for injury to immobilien was incorrectly denied. This trial court's deniable by the motion is reversed and the reason is held up the trial court for the objective of estimate a logical attorney's fee to be taxed as costs.
¶12 OPINION OF WHO JUSTICE OF APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THIS EVALUATION COURT REVERSED; CAUSE REMANDED WITH LOCATION.
¶13 DOOLIN, C.J., and HOODS, LAVENDER, OPALA and ALMA WILSON, JJ., concur.
¶14 KAUGER, J., concur due reason of stare decisis.
¶15 SUMMERS, J., concur in result.
¶16 SIMMS, J., dissents.