Simas Floor Co., Inc. v. Tysen
| Decision Date | 27 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 14245,14245 |
| Parties | SIMAS FLOOR CO., INC., Appellant, v. Drusilla TYSEN, dba Strawberry Shortcake, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Fran P. Archuleta, Reno, for appellant.
Sala, McAuliffe, White & Long, and J. Michael Memeo, Reno, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment in a contract dispute. The sole issue presented is whether the district court committed reversible error in awarding attorney's fees to the defendant below, respondent Tysen. We conclude that the district court did not commit reversible error, and we therefore affirm the award of attorney's fees.
Appellant ("Simas"), plaintiff below, filed a complaint against Tysen, alleging that Tysen had failed to pay Simas for certain services rendered by Simas. Simas specifically alleged that Tysen had agreed to pay $5,383.50 for these services, and prayed for judgment in this amount, with interest. Simas also alleged that it had suffered "special and general damages" in excess of $10,000, and prayed for judgment in that amount.
Tysen filed an answer and counterclaim in the lawsuit, and the matter proceeded to trial.
At trial, Simas presented evidence that the price for the services rendered to Tysen was $5,383.50. Simas presented no evidence, however, supporting the allegation of special and general damages. At the conclusion of trial, the district court entered judgment for Tysen on Simas' complaint, and awarded Tysen $750 in attorney's fees. The district court also entered judgment for Simas on Tysen's counterclaim. This appeal followed.
Simas contends on appeal that under NRS 18.010(2)(c) 1, the district court had no authority to award attorney's fees to Tysen, because Simas sought recovery in excess of $10,000. Simas relies on Peacock Jewelers, Inc. v. Nevada St. Bk., 92 Nev. 654, 556 P.2d 1266 (1976), where we summarily vacated an award of attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant because the complaint "sought" more than $10,000.
Although Peacock Jewelers, Inc. seemingly supports Simas' position, Tysen contends that that decision should not control here, because Simas provided absolutely no support, in its pleadings, at trial or otherwise, for its allegation of damages in excess of $10,000. We agree with Tysen's contention. The complaint in this case was based solely on a theory of breach of contract, and Simas alleged a specific amount of money owed by Tysen because of the breach. The complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center
... ... Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 669 P.2d 709 (1983) (noting that providing ... at 16, 107 P.3d at 1286 ... 15. Yamaha Motor Co. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 238, 955 P.2d 661, 664 (1998) ... ...
-
Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc.
... ... Hurtado, 96 Nev. 375, 609 P.2d 327 (1980); Southern Pacific Co. v. Watkins, 83 Nev. 471, 435 P.2d 498 (1967). See generally W. Prosser, ... ...
-
Del Piero v. Phillips, 18648
... ... Barnes v. Delta Lines, Inc., 99 Nev. 688, 690-91, 669 P.2d 709, 711 (1983). As such, ... ...
-
Campbell v. Nocilla
...of attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant because the complaint "sought" more than $10,000. Respondent relies on Simas Floor Co. v. Tysen, 99 Nev. 691, 669 P.2d 708 (1983), where we held that under the circumstances of that case, although the complaint prayed for damages in excess of $10......