§ 3.7.2.6.5.13 Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 3.7.2.6.5.13 Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Trial court attorneys’ fees awards are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Midtown Medical Group, M.D v. Farmers Ins. Group, 235 Ariz. 593, 596, ¶ 16, 334 P.3d 1252, 1255 (App. 2014); Bennett Blum, M.D., Inc. v. Cowan, 235 Ariz. 204, 205, ¶ 5, 330 P.3d 961, 962 (App. 2014); Geller v. Lesk, 230 Ariz. 624, 627, ¶ 8, 285 P.3d 972, 975 (App. 2012).

The trial court’s discretion will not be disturbed if there is any reasonable basis for it. See Desert Mountain Props. Ltd. P’ship, 225 Ariz. 194, 212-13, ¶ 80, 236 P.3d 421, 439-40 (App. 2012); In re Estate of Parker, 217 Ariz. 563, 569, ¶ 31, 177 P.3d 305, 311 (App. 2008); Barth v. Cochise Cty., 213 Ariz. 59, 64, ¶ 18, 138 P.3d 1186, 1191 (App. 2006). It will not be overturned if it is reasonably supported by the record. See Summers Group, Inc. v. Tempe Mech., LLC, 231 Ariz. 571, 573, ¶ 9, 299 P.3d 743, 745 (App. 2013). This is true even if the trial court gives no reasons for its decision. See Fulton Homes Corp. v. BBP Concrete, 214 Ariz. 566, 569, ¶ 9, 155 P.3d 1090, 1093 (App. 2007). However, a trial court abused its discretion in failing to consider all guideline factors, including an overall cost-benefit analysis of the services provided, in deciding that a ward’s estate could not afford to pay the fiduciary/attorneys’ fees charged. See In re Conservatorship for Mallet, 233 Ariz. 29, 32, ¶ 12, 308 P.3d 1180, 1183 (App. 2013).

The decision as to who is the successful party for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees is within the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal if any reasonable basis exists for it. See Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP v. Sourant, 229 Ariz. 124, 133, ¶ 31, 272 P.3d 355, 364 (App. 2012); Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., 228 Ariz. 9, 13, ¶ 21, 261 P.3d 784, 788 (App. 2011); Desert Mountain Props. Ltd. P’ship v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 225 Ariz. 194, 213, ¶ 81, 236 P.3d 421, 440 (App. 2010). Determining who is a successful party for purposes of awarding costs also is left to the trial court’s discretion. See Bishop v. Pecanic, 193 Ariz. 524, 530, ¶ 26, 975 P.2d 114, 120 (App. 1998). It views the record in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s decision. See In re Indenture of Trust Dated January 13, 1964, 235 Ariz. 40, 51, ¶ 41, 326 P.3d 307, 318 (App. 2014).

Denial of an attorneys’ fees request is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Varsity Gold, Inc. v. Porzio, 202 Ariz. 355, 360, ¶ 28, 45 P.3d 352, 357 (App. 2002).

In reviewing the trial court’s discretionary ruling, “[t]he question is not whether the judges of this [appellate] court would have made an original like ruling, but whether a judicial mind, in view of the law and circumstances, could have made the ruling without exceeding the bounds of reason. We [the appellate judges] cannot substitute our discretion for that of the trial judge.” See Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 178 Ariz. 425, 430, 874 P.2d 982, 987 (App. 1994) (quoting Associated Indem. Corp., 143 Ariz. at 571, 694 P.2d at 1185).

Whether a legal doctrine such as res judicata precludes an award of attorneys’ fees is reviewed de novo. If there is no such legal...