From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

KEETON v. RIKE

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division II
Jan 6, 1977
38 Colo. App. 505 (Colo. App. 1977)

Summary

interpreting a statute that provided that the judgment "shall include a reasonable attorney fee"

Summary of this case from Crandall v. City of Denver

Opinion

No. 76-344

Decided January 6, 1977.

Employee obtained judgment against employer for unpaid commissions on mobile homes sales, but trial court refused to award attorney's fee. Employee appealed.

Reversed

1. MASTER AND SERVANTJudgment for Wages Due — Statute Requires — Inclusion — Attorney's Fee — Trial Court's Discretion — Limited — Determination of Amount. The statute providing that a judgment in a civil action by an employee for the recovery or collection of wages and penalties due "shall include a reasonable attorney fee in favor of the winning party" leaves nothing to the discretion of the trial court except to determine what is a reasonable fee.

Appeal from the District Court of Adams County, Honorable Abraham Bowling, Judge.

Sonheim Helm, Darrel L. Matteson, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert W. Baker, for defendant-appellee.


Plaintiff, Warren L. Keeton (the employee), obtained a judgment on his claim against the defendant, Fred Rike (the employer), in the amount of $175 for unpaid commissions on mobile home sales. In addition to the commissions, the employee sought a reasonable attorney fee to be taxed as costs pursuant to § 8-4-114, C.R.S. 1973. The court refused to award an attorney fee, and the employee appeals that ruling. We reverse.

Section 8-4-114, C.R.S. 1973, states:

"Whenever it is necessary for an employee to commence a civil action for the recovery or collection of wages and penalties due as provided by sections 8-4-104 and 8-4-105, the judgment in such action shall include a reasonable attorney fee in favor of the winning party, to be taxed as part of the costs of the action."

It is not clear from the judgment, based on the jury verdict, whether the employee's recovery was under § 104 or § 105, but § 114 applies to either. Hofer v. Polly Little Realtors, Inc. 37 Colo. App. 86, 543 P.2d 114. To be the "winning party," there is no requirement that penalties in addition to wages be recovered. See Hofer, supra.

[1] Section 114, in providing that the judgment "shall include a reasonable attorney fee in favor of the winning part," leaves nothing to the discretion of the trial court except to determine what is a reasonable fee.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to hold a hearing to determine the amount of a reasonable attorney fee, including also a fee for this appeal, to be added to the amount due the plaintiff.

CHIEF JUDGE SILVERSTEIN and JUDGE RULAND concur.


Summaries of

KEETON v. RIKE

Colorado Court of Appeals. Division II
Jan 6, 1977
38 Colo. App. 505 (Colo. App. 1977)

interpreting a statute that provided that the judgment "shall include a reasonable attorney fee"

Summary of this case from Crandall v. City of Denver

In Keeton v. Rike, 38 Colo. App. 505, 559 P.2d 262 (1977), we said that: "[I]n providing that the judgment `shall include a reasonable attorney's fee in favor of the winning party,' [§ 8-4-114] leaves nothing to the discretion of the trial court except to determine what is a reasonable fee."

Summary of this case from Rohr v. Ted Neiters Motor Co.
Case details for

KEETON v. RIKE

Case Details

Full title:Warren L. Keeton v. Fred Rike, individually and d/b/a Fireside Mobile Homes

Court:Colorado Court of Appeals. Division II

Date published: Jan 6, 1977

Citations

38 Colo. App. 505 (Colo. App. 1977)
559 P.2d 262

Citing Cases

Technical Computer Services v. Buckley

Because defendant was not improperly denied fees by the trial court, he is not entitled to fees incurred in…

Steenhouse v. Jacor Broadcasting

The statute mandates such an award; it leaves nothing to the court's discretion. Keeton v. Rike, 38 Colo.…