Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Lee-Magana v. Carpenter (7/1/2016) sp-7113

Lee-Magana v. Carpenter (7/1/2016) sp-7113

           Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                    ACIFIC  REPORTER.  

           Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

                                                                                                                        

           303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                                                           

           corrections@akcourts.us.  



                       THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                       



OLIVIA  LEE-MAGANA,                                              )  

                                                                 )          Supreme  Court  No.  S-15854  

                                Appellant,                       )  

                                                                 )                                            

                                                                            Superior Court Nos. 3AN-14-02776/  

                                                                 )                                    

                      v.                                                   3AN-14-02990 CI  

                                                                 )  

               

JACOB CARPENTER,                                                 )                              

                                                                           O P I N I O N  

                                                                 )  

                                Appellee.                        )                                         

                                                                           No. 7113 - July 1, 2016  

                                                                 )  



                                   

                                                                                                              

                      Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                                                                     

                      Judicial District, Anchorage, Michael D. Corey, Judge.  



                                                                                                   

                      Appearances:              Olivia  Lee-Magana,  pro  se,  Anchorage,  

                                                                                                  

                      Appellant.  No appearance by Appellee Jacob Carpenter.  



                                                                                                                  

                      Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Fabe, Winfree, Maassen, and  

                                                  

                      Bolger, Justices.  



                                            

                      MAASSEN, Justice.  



I.         INTRODUCTION  



                                                                                                                              

                      This  appeal  involves  two  petitions  for  long-term  domestic  violence  



                                                                                                                                       

protective orders.  A woman prevailed both on a petition she brought against her ex- 



                                                                                                                                      

boyfriend and on a petition he brought against her. She moved for attorney's fees in both  



cases, but the trial court denied her motions at first and again on reconsideration.  The  



                                                                                      

woman appeals, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding her  



                                                                                                                             

full attorney's fees on both petitions - on hers because she was the prevailing petitioner  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

in   a   domestic   violence   case   for   whom   fees   are   allowed   by   statute,   and   on   her  



ex-boyfriend's because she was the prevailing party and his petition was vexatious.                                                                                              



                                We affirm the superior court's denial of attorney's fees for the woman's                                                                                  



successful defense against her ex-boyfriend's petition.                                                                                   As for the court's denial of                                     



attorney's fees to the woman as the prevailing petitioner, we conclude there was no                                                                                                                       



adequate reason for denying fees and therefore reverse and remand for an award of fees                                                                                                                 



in an appropriate amount.                                       



II.             FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS               



                A.              Background  



                                Olivia Lee-Magana and Jacob Carpenter met as teenagers sometime in the                                                                                                   

                1     They were in a two-year romantic relationship beginning in 2012 and had a  

 1990s.                                                                                                                                                                                                      



child together.   But their relationship was often tumultuous.   In late 2014 Carpenter  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



attempted to evict Lee-Magana from his home, and there followed a dispute over child  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    



custody and allegations of domestic violence by each party against the other.  

                                                                                                                                                                            



                B.              Lee-Magana's Petition For A Domestic Violence Protective Order  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                Lee-Magana filed a petition for a protective order against Carpenter on  

                                                                                                                                                                                                          



September 16, 2014.  At the close of an ex parte hearing, the magistrate judge granted  



her a twenty-day protective order.  The subsequent hearing on a long-term protective  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



order was heard by the superior court judge assigned to the parties' custody dispute.  At  

                                                                                                                                                                                                          



the hearing, Carpenter stipulated to an act of domestic violence because of a finding  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



recently made by another judge, in a different case, involving a different petitioner, and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



the judge entered a long-term protective order predicated on that stipulation.  Much of  

                                                                                                                                                                                           



the rest of the hearing involved working out such details as no-contact provisions and the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         



retrieval of personal property.  

                                                  



                1               Lee-Magana was represented by counsel in the superior court but is acting  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  

pro se on appeal.  Carpenter did not file a brief on appeal or otherwise appear.  

                                                                                                                                                                           



                                                                                                     -2-                                                                                                     7113  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

                    After the hearing Lee-Magana filed a motion for an award of $1,000 in  

                                                                                                                                



reasonable actual attorney's fees, "pursuant to [AS] 18.66.100(c)(14), based upon her  

                                                                                                                              



status as the prevailing litigant in this case."  She filed the motion late and moved that  

                                                                    



it be accepted late; the superior court denied the fees motion without explanation. A few  

                                                                                                                             



weeks later Lee-Maganamovedfor reconsideration,asking thecourt toexplain its ruling.  

                                                                                                                                    



          C.        Carpenter's Petition For A Domestic Violence Protective Order  

                                                                                                                 



                    A few weeks after Lee-Magana filed her petition for a long-term domestic  

                                                                                                                     



violence protective order against Carpenter, he filed a petition for both short-term and  

                                        



long-term orders against her.  Carpenter, unlike Lee-Magana, was denied a short-term  



order.   The hearing on Carpenter's request for a long-term order took place in late  

                                                                                                                             



October, again before the judge in the custody case, two weeks after the judge had  

                                                                                                                             



granted Lee-Magana a  long-term order.   On Carpenter's petition against Lee-Magana,  

                                                                                                               



the superior court found "that [the case] was close," but it declined to issue a long-term  

                                                                                                                    



order on the ground that Carpenter had failed to prove he was the victim of domestic  

                                                                                                                     



violence.  



                    Lee-Magana moved for attorney's fees on this petition too, again seeking  

                                                                                                                       



$1,000.   Carpenter opposed the motion and, as in the other case, the superior court  

                                                                                                             



denied the motion without explanation.  Lee-Magana moved for reconsideration and  

                                                                                                                             



Carpenter again filed an opposition.  

                                      



          D.        The Superior Court's Orders On Reconsideration  

                                                                                                      



                    On  reconsideration,  the  superior  court  issued  orders  in  both  domestic  

                                                                                                                     



violencematters explainingwhy it had denied Lee-Magana's motions for attorney's fees.  

                                                                                                                                    



The court explained that it did not award fees for Lee-Magana's successful defense  

                                                                                                                       



against Carpenter's petition because it did not want to "cast a chilling effect on the  

                                                                                                                              



pursuit of relief in the face of perceived entitlement to protection from alleged domestic  

                                                                                                                     



violence." It further stated that it was "unwilling to characterize Mr. Carpenter's efforts  

                                                                                                                         



[in pursuing his petition against Lee-Magana] as 'vexatious.' "  

                                                                                                 



                                                               -3-                                                        7113
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                                           As for Lee-Magana'spetitionagainstCarpenter -on                                                                                                                        which shesucceeded               



 in obtaining a long-term protective order - the superior court noted that "Carpenter                                                                                                                                                           



 stipulated to the entry of [the] Long-Term Domestic Violence Order" and that "[a]                                                                                                                                                                                    



 significant portion of that hearing (which was also set on in the custody matter . . .) was                                                                                                                                                                           



 spent with property and interim support issues which were to be included in[] the LTDV                                                                                                                                                                       



 Order."     The court ruled that "[t]o the extent that proceeding dealt                                                                                                                                                           with [domestic  



violence] issues, attorney fees are denied, with prejudice."                                                                                                                            However, "[t]o the extent the                                                     



proceedings   addressed   custody   and   support   issues,   the   request   for   attorney   fees  is  



 dismissed, without prejudice. Attendant attorney fees issues may be raised in connection                                                                                                                                                        



with any application for attorney fees in [the custody case]."                                                                                                             



                                           Lee-Magana filed this appeal.                                                                   It addresses only the denial of her requests                                                                  



 for attorney's fees in the two domestic violence cases.                                                                                                                        



III.                  STANDARDS OF REVIEW                                            



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   2  

                                           We review attorney's fee awards for abuse of discretion.                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          An award or  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 denial of attorney's fees is an abuse of discretion if it is "arbitrary, capricious, manifestly  



                                                                                                                                     3  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

unreasonable, or improperly motivated."                                                                                                      Interpretation of statutes, including those  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 authorizing awards of attorney's fees in particular types of cases, is subject to de novo  



                        4  

review.   



                      2                    Greene v. Tinker                                      , 332 P.3d 21, 41 (Alaska 2014);                                                                          Koller v. Reft                              , 71 P.3d     



 800, 808 (Alaska 2003).                                 



                      3                   Rhodes v. Erion, 189 P.3d 1051, 1053 (Alaska 2008) (quoting Kellis v.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 Crites, 20 P.3d 1112, 1113 (Alaska 2001)); see also Gold Dust Mines, Inc. v. Little  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Squaw Gold Mining Co., 299 P.3d 148, 157 (Alaska 2012) ("We will not reverse an  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

 [attorney's fee] award unless it is 'manifestly unreasonable.' " (quoting  Welcome v.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Jennings, 780 P.2d 1039, 1043 (Alaska 1989)).  

                                                                                                                                



                      4                    See In re Vernon H., 332 P.3d 565, 572 (Alaska 2014) (construing statutory  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 authority for awards of attorney's fees in guardianship proceedings).  

                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                      -4-                                                                                                                           7113
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

IV.	        DISCUSSION  



                        The superior court's denials of attorney's fees in the two cases -  one in  

                                                                                                                                                       



which  Lee-Magana  was  the  prevailing  respondent  and  one  in  which  she  was  the  

                                                                                                                                                    



prevailing petitioner - are subject to different analyses. We reach different conclusions  

                                                                                                                                      



in the two cases.  

                    



            A.	         The  Superior  Court  Did  Not  Abuse  Its  Discretion  By  Denying  

                                                                                                                                         

                        Attorney's Fees To Lee-Magana For Her Successful Defense Against  

                                                                                                                                            

                        Carpenter's Petition.  

                                                 



                        Lee-Magana contends  on  appeal that in  seeking fees for  the domestic  

                                                                                                                                          



violence proceeding brought by Carpenter, "she simply relied upon [Alaska] Civil Rule  

                                                                                                                                                  

82 and her status as the prevailing party."5  

                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                            But in fact her initial motion relied solely on  



                                                                                                                                                

the statute governing the allowable provisions of a domestic violence protective order,  



                                                                                                                                                       

AS 18.66.100(c)(14); she did not cite Rule 82 until she moved for reconsideration, at  



                                                                                                                                                  6  

                                                                                                                                                      

which point the court was not obliged to consider a new basis for her fees request.                                                                   In  



                                                                                                                                            

any event, we have recently reiterated "as a general proposition that '[i]f a specific  



                                                                                                                                                  

statutory scheme for attorney's fees exists, Civil Rule 82 does not apply,' " because Rule  



                                                                                                                                      

82(a) specifically excludes from its reach those cases in which fees are "otherwise  



                                7  

                       

provided by law."    



                                                                                                                                                

                        Alaska Statute 18.66.100(c)(14) provides that "[a] protective order under  



                                                                                                                                                    

this section  may  . .  .  require the respondent to  pay  costs and  fees  incurred  by  the  



            5           Rule 82(a) provides:                  "Except as otherwise provided by law or agreed to                                        



by the parties, the prevailing party in a civil case shall be awarded attorney's fees                                                              

calculated under this rule."           



            6           See Donahue v. Ledgends, Inc., 331 P.3d 342, 356 (Alaska 2014) (holding  

                                                                                                                                           

that the superior court was not "obliged to consider the [Alaska Civil] Rule 68 argument  

                                                                                                                                          

when it was raised for the first time in motions for reconsideration").  

                                                                                           



            7          In re Vernon H., 332 P.3d at 576 (alteration in the original) (quoting Enders  

                                                                                                                                              

v. Parker, 66 P.3d 11, 17 (Alaska 2003)).  

                                                              

                                                                          -5-	                                                                   7113
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

petitioner in bringing the action under this chapter."                                                                           The statute thus authorizes awards                                 



of costs and fees to "the petitioner," not to a respondent, regardless of whether the                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                   8  The superior court's explanation  

respondent successfully defended against the petition.                                                                                                                                   



for denying Lee-Magana's request for fees in Carpenter's case - that awarding fees  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            



against an unsuccessful petitioner could "cast a chilling effect on the pursuit of relief"  

                                                                                     



from domestic violence - is consistent with the apparent purpose of this statutory  

                                                                                                                                                                                               



dichotomy.  

                              



                                 Lee-Magana also argues that she was entitled to attorney's fees because  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



Carpenter's petition  was vexatious.                                                           Although  as with  Rule 82  she did  not raise a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



vexatiousness argument in her original motion, the superior court addressed the issue in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



its  order  on  reconsideration,  finding  expressly  that  Carpenter's  efforts  were  not  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            



vexatious.  This is consistent with the judge's earlier remarks at the close of the hearing  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   



on Carpenter's petition, when the judge said "there were many interactions between [the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            



parties] that come very close to constituting domestic violence [in] the way Alaska has  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             



defined it" and that the case "was close in [his] mind."  We need not determine whether  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



vexatiousness may provide a separate basis for an award of fees against an unsuccessful  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



petitioner  in  a  domestic  violence  case,  as  we  defer  to  the  superior  court's  better  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      



perspective on the parties' motivations and its finding in this case that Carpenter did not  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

act vexatiously.9  

                                               



                 8               See State, Office of Pub. Advocacy v. Estate of Jean R.                                                                           , __ P.3d __, Op. No.                     



7098, 2016 WL 1612829 (Alaska Apr. 22, 2016) (observing that "[i]n domestic violence                                                                                                             

proceedings, . . . the court may require the respondent to pay the petitioner's attorney's                                                                                                   

fees if a protective order                                         is granted; yet there is no parallel provision allowing the                                                                               

respondent   in   a   domestic   violence   proceeding   to   collect   attorney's   fees  from   the  

petitioner if the petitioner does not prevail").                                                                 



                 9               See Greene v. Tinker, 332 P.3d 21, 42 (Alaska 2014) (observing that in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                     (continued...)  



                                                                                                       -6-                                                                                               7113
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

            B.	         The Superior Court On Remand Should Award Attorney's Fees  To   

                        Lee-Magana For Her                         Successful Petition.   



                        Lee-Magana also argues that she was entitled to full attorney's fees as the                                                   



prevailing petitioner on the domestic violence petition she brought against Carpenter.                                                                       



Though   she   again   makes   arguments   based   on   Rule   82   and   Carpenter's   alleged  



                                                                                                                           10  

vexatiousness, we limit our discussion to her claim under the statute.                                                         



                                                                                                                                                     

                        Alaska Statute 18.66.100(c)  provides that "[a] protective order under this  



                                                                                                                                                     

section may" include various provisions, including one requiring the respondent to pay  



                                                     11  

                                                                                                                                           

the petitioner's costs and fees.                          Lee-Magana concedes that the statute's plain language  



                                                                                                                                         

"does not expressly 'require' the trial court to award [her] her full costs and attorney's  



                                                                                                                   

fees," but she argues that full reimbursement is the only way to effectuate the statute's  



                                                                                                                                                       

purposes.  She contends that she was a victim of domestic violence and that she will be  



                                                                                                                                                   

further victimized if she is required to pay for protection from future violence.   She  



                                                

argues that in the absence of full reimbursement of attorney's fees, petitioners like her  



                                                                                                                                                      

may feel compelled to proceed pro se, and their lack of legal experience may deprive the  



                                                                                                       

court of the evidence it needs to make a correct decision.  



            9(...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                  

determining whether claims were brought in bad faith for purposes of a departure from  

                                                                                                                                                    

the Rule 82 schedule for attorney's fees awards, "the superior court was in the best  

                                                                 

position to evaluate [the plaintiff's] motivations").  



            10          As explained above, Rule 82 is displaced by the statutory fees provision,  

                                                                                                                                         

and  an  argument  based  on  Carpenter's  alleged  vexatiousness  is  precluded  by  our  

                                                                                                                                                    

deference to the superior court's finding that he was not vexatious.  We also note that  

                                                                                                                                                    

when seeking fees related to her successful petition, Lee-Magana expressly disclaimed  

                                                                                                                                        

any reliance on Rule 82, noting in her motion for reconsideration "that she is not seeking  

                                                                                                                                              

Civil Rule 82 fees in this case but has, instead[,] requested the reimbursement of her fees  

                                                                                                                                                    

pursuant to [AS] 18.66.100(c)(14)."  

                                                                   



            11          AS 18.66.100(c)(14) (emphasis added).  

                                                                                  



                                                                           -7-	                                                                   7113
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                         We    recognize    the    strong    policy    arguments    for    encouraging    legal  



representation in domestic violence proceedings, as represented petitioners are more                                                                     



likely to succeed in obtaining a protective order and are less likely to suffer further                                                               

            12  Notwithstanding the discretionary nature of the award, it would seem to be the  

abuse.                                                                                                                                                       



exceptional case in which the superior court declines to award attorney's fees to the  

                                                                                                                                                             



prevailing petitioner. In Scully v. Scully we addressed a statutory amendment providing  

                                                                                                                                                 



that a court "may" modify a child support judgment to provide "for the care, nurture, and  

                                                                                                                                                            



education of unmarried 18-year-old children of the marriage while they are actively  

                                                                                                                                                    



pursuing a high school diploma or an equivalent level of technical or vocational training  

                                                                                                                                                     

and living as dependents with a parent."13                                       Citing the number of children to which the  

                                                                                                                                                             



change likely applied, and notwithstanding the statute's grant of trial-court discretion,  

                                                                                                                                               



we concluded that "it should be the exceptional case in which a court declines to extend  

                                                                                                                                                       



child support payments beyond the child's eighteenth birthday where [the] statutory  

                                                                                                                                                  



             12          See   JENNIFER    S.    ROSENBERG   &   DENISE   A.   GRAB,   INST .   FOR   POLICY  



INTEGRITY AT N.Y.U.SCH.OF LAW, SUPPORTING SURVIVORS : THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS  

                                                                                                                                                 

OF  PROVIDING  CIVIL  LEGAL  ASSISTANCE  TO  SURVIVORS  OF  DOMESTIC  VIOLENCE  9  

                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                

(2015), http://www.policyintegrity.org/documents/SupportingSurvivors.pdf (reporting  

                                                                                                                                                               

that "access to legal services is a determining factor in whether a woman chooses to  

                                                                                                                                                               

exercise  her  right to  petition  for  a  protective  order  - and  whether  her  petition  is  

                                                                                                                                                             

sucessful"); Jane C.                       Murphy, Engaging with the State:  The Growing Reliance  on  

                                                                                                     M. U. J. GENDER  SOC. POL'Y &L.   

Lawyers and Judges to Protect Battered Women, 11 A 

                                                                                                                                                 

499, 511-12 (2003) (reporting that 83% of women seeking domestic violence protective  

                                                                                                    

orders who had an attorney succeeded in getting the order, while only 32% of women  

                                                                                                                                                       

without an attorney succeeded); Amy Farmer & Jill Tiefenthaler, Explaining the Recent  

                                                                  ONTEMP. E            CON. P      OL'Y   158, 167 (2003) (concluding        

Decline in Domestic Violence, 21 C 

that "[m]ost services provided to help battered women do not impact the likelihood of                                 

abuse, but the provision of legal services significantly lowers the incidence of domestic                                                         

violence").  



             13          987 P.2d 743, 745 (Alaska 1999) (quoting AS 25.24.170(a)).  

                                                                                                                  

                                                                               -8-                                                                       7113
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                                          14  

requirements have been met."                                                                                                                                                                        Here, too, we conclude that it should be the exceptional                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



 case in which a court fails to grant what the statute allows.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



                                                                                    In the superior court's order on reconsideration, it explained that it denied                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



 "with prejudice" Lee-Magana's request for fees related to her successful petition "to the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 extent [the] proceeding dealt with [domestic violence] issues," but that "[t]o the extent                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



the proceedings addressed custody and support issues, the request for attorney fees [was]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



 dismissed, without prejudice."                                                                                                                                                                    The order contemplated that Lee-Magana would seek                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 fees related to the custody and support issues "in connection with any application for                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



 attorney fees in [the ongoing custody case]."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    But our review of the hearing on Lee-                                                                                                                                                                                        



Magana's petition for a long-term order reveals that, despite Carpenter's stipulation to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



the underlying act of domestic violence, almost all of the hearing was devoted to ironing                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



 out the details of the protective order; very little of it involved issues of custody or                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 support.   In the brief discussion of custody, the parties agreed to leave things as they                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



were, and the only discussion of child support put off the issue for later, after the parties                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



had submitted their income forms.                                                                                                                                                                                       Because so little of the hearing involved custody, it                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



 appears that the attorney's fees incurred in the domestic violence proceeding that Lee-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



Magana may recover in the related custody case may be minimal.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                    To the extent the superior court's denial of attorney's fees relied on the fact                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



that   Carpenter   stipulated   to   the   entry  of   the   long-term   order,   the   denial   is   also  



unwarranted. Carpenter's stipulation did not make the proceeding or the resulting order                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



unnecessary;   at   best   it   helped   minimize   the   amount   of   attorney's   fees   for   which  



 Carpenter could be held responsible.                                                                                                                    



                                          14                                       Id.  at 747.   



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -9-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      7113
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                                                           In   short,   neither  justification   given   for   the   superior   court's   denial   of  



 attorney's fees "[t]o the extent [the] proceeding dealt with DV issues" - neither the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



possibility that Lee-Magana could recover some fees in the custody case nor the fact that                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



the proceedings commenced with Carpenter's stipulation to an act of domestic violence                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



-  demonstrates this to be the "exceptional case" in which a denial of fees is justified.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



We therefore reverse and remand for entry of an award of reasonable attorney's fees.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



V.                                    CONCLUSION  



                                                                           We AFFIRM the superior court's order denying attorney's fees in the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



 domestic violence proceeding brought by Carpenter against Lee-Magana, case number                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 3AN-14-02990 CI. We REVERSE the denial of attorney's fees in the domestic violence                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



proceeding brought by Lee-Magana against Carpenter, case number 3AN-14-02776 CI.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -10-                                                                                                                                                                                                                             7113
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC