Praus v. Trollope Civil No. 940307

Per Curiam.

Lynn and Connie Trollope appeal from a portion of a summary judgment entered in their favor, against Les Praus, which denied their motion for attorney's fees under NDCC 28-26-01(2), 28-26-31 and Rule 11, NDRCivP. We agree with the trial court's finding that Praus's claim was not frivolous and thus it was not required to award attorney's fees under NDCC 28-26-01(2) and Rule 11, NDRCivP. We affirm under Rule 35.1(a)(4), NDRAppP. See Hart Honey Co. v. Cudworth, 446 N.W.2d 742 (N.D. 1989). The trial court's finding, in essence, that Praus did not violate NDCC 28-26-31 by pleading his claim in bad faith is not clearly erroneous and we affirm under Rule 35.1(a)(2), NDRAppP. See Napoleon Livestock Auction, Inc. v. Rohrich, 406 N.W.2d 346 (N.D. 1987); Edgeley Education Ass'n v. Edgeley Public School Dist., 256 N.W.2d 348 (N.D. 1977).

Les Praus cross-appeals, arguing that the district court erred in granting the Trollopes' motion for summary judgment because there were genuine issues of material fact. We affirm under Rule 35.1(a)(6), NDRAppP.

Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.
Herbert L. Meschke
Beryl J. Levine
William A. Neumann
Dale V. Sandstrom