Was the appellant entitled to the payment of ``attorney fees and costs” by the appellee after accepting his offer ``judgment”?
American rule offers the guidelines in regard to compensations of ``attorney fees and costs” arising out a case .The rule states that a plaintiff should be compensation for the costs and ```attorney fees” incurred irrespective of accepting an offer`` judgment” from the defendant.
Finnel v Seismic was applied by the appellate court to determine the issue presented by this case. American rule is the basis of reasoning in Oklahoma when dealing with matters dealing with compensation of costs and ``attorney fees”. The case provided that a plaintiff is entitled to be awarded ``attorney fees and costs” even after accepting an offer of `judgment” from a defendant.
The court ruled that Wieland case was inappropriate in this case because it was applied eleven years prior to the formation of section 1101.1 in the years 1991.The court further stated that the appellant filed an application for the reimbursement of the ``costs and attorney fees”.
The reversing of the district’s court ``judgment” was fair. A plaintiff should be awarded all the expenses linked to a case that arises as a result of defendant’s actions. In this case, the defendant’s motive was to outdo the plaintiff by claiming that he did not include the reimbursement of the attorney fees and ``costs” to his offer judgment.
It was fair that the plaintiff be awarded the costs because we find that the defendant delivered the offer judgment eight months later after the court issued an order requiring him to pay for the services rendered by the plaintiff thus he should not use it to defeat the essence of the suit instituted by the plaintiff.