Legal Opinion · Dissent

O'CONNELL v. Will

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided October 28, 2011No. S-13540Published

1DissentFabe, Justice

I disagree with the court's conclusion that the contract between O'Connell and the Wills authorizes the award of post-judgment collec*48tion costs. In my view, the attorney's fee provision in the contract simply does not contemplate these expenses. The contract provides that the signatories "promise[ ], in case suit is instituted, to collect this note, or any portion thereof, in addition to the costs and disbursements of said suit, a reasonable attorney's fee in such suit or action ...." (Emphasis added.) Because the phrase "reasonable attorney's fee in such suit or action" cannot be construed…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. O'Link v. O'LinkAlaska Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Strenge v. ClarkeWashington Supreme Court · 1977
  3. Alaska State Housing Authoarity v. Riley Pleas, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1978
  4. International Sales-Rentals Leasing Co. v. NearhoofSupreme Court of Florida · 1972
  5. Western Pioneer, Inc. v. Harbor Enterprises, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1991

9 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