Cited by

: (1) “[t]he merits of the claim 9 REDDING, et al. v. SOUTHEAST VALLEY Decision of the Court or defense presented by the unsuccessful party,” (2) whether “[t]he litigation could have been avoided or settled and [whether] the

to determine whether to award a discretionary attorneys’ fee award under A.R.S.

(“considering the nature of the action and the relative economic positions of the parties” when awarding attorney fees).

the court granted the motion in part, awarding 1Absent material revisions after the relevant dates, statutes and rules cited refer to the current version unless otherwise indicated.

(The factors in determining a fee award include, among other things, the claim’s merits and whether an award would cause extreme hardship.).

we grant Hill’s request for a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees upon compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.

( (Windes, J., specially concurring)).

– 71 (1985); (contract fee provisions enforced by their terms); Berry v. 352 E. Virginia, L.L.C., –14, ¶¶ 21–24 (App. 2011) (discretionary “prevailing party” assessment).

-71 (1985) (citation omitted).

But the court then found the test unhelpful because the parties had “each successfully defended all fee eligible claims made by the other.” Consequently, and the language of A.R.S.

¶14 Gerdts and McKinney also argue that the court erred by assuming that Berghoff was entitled to attorney’s

Kaman Aerospace v. Ariz. Bd.