Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Beardall v. Beardall

Utah Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 1981No. 16994Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHall, Justice

I concur with the main opinion except as to its disposition of the issue of attorney’s fees.

*428The majority of the Court cites no authority for holding that the requisite evi-dentiary basis for an award of attorney’s fees may arise by mere implication, or that an award may be made if it be de minimis. Indeed, it appears that there is none.

An award of attorney’s fees must be based upon direct evidence adduced at trial as to: 1) need, 2) ability to pay, and 3) reasonableness of the fee to be awarded.1 As stated in the case of Butler v. Butler:2

This court has consistently held that an attorney’s…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. F. M. A. Financial Corp. v. Build, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Kerr v. KerrUtah Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Richards v. HodsonUtah Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Butler v. ButlerUtah Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Adams v. AdamsUtah Supreme Court · 1979

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API