Brooks v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority
2008-CA-001677 11/13/09 2009 WL 3786367
The Court then held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the Housing Authority its reasonable attorney fees pursuant to CR 54.04 and KRS 411.080.
The Court finally held that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for additional attorney fees for her attempt to enforce the judgment through non-wage garnishment as CR 54.04 and KRS 344.450 only allowed for awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party.
2008-CA-001677 11/13/09 2009 WL 3786367
Opinion by Judge Nickell; Judges Keller and Moore concurred.
The Court affirmed orders of the circuit court granting appellee’s costs and expenses incurred in the successful bid to quash enforcement of a non-wage garnishment and denying appellant’s request for attorney fees.
The Court first held that the trial court did not err in granting legal fees to appellee for amounts incurred in challenging the enforcement of the non-wage garnishment. Appellant’s reliance on the law of the case doctrine was misplaced. The record and the earlier published opinions rendered in the matter did not hold that the Housing Authority was not a state agency and in light of precedent, the Housing Authority, created under KRS Chapter 80, enjoyed the status of a state agency. Therefore, the trial court correctly found that it was not subject to levy or execution by garnishment.The Court then held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the Housing Authority its reasonable attorney fees pursuant to CR 54.04 and KRS 411.080.
The Court finally held that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request for additional attorney fees for her attempt to enforce the judgment through non-wage garnishment as CR 54.04 and KRS 344.450 only allowed for awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party.
Comments