Kevin O'Connell, Appellant v. Anthony Will and Paulette Will, Appellees

Summary

The court held that the promissory note required the Wills to reimburse O'Connell for reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in post-judgment efforts to collect the note. It also held that O'Connell lacked standing to challenge service of Anthony Will's satisfaction motion on Paulette Will and that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by considering the motion despite the service defect. The court reversed the denial of post-judgment fees, vacated the satisfaction order, and remanded for further proceedings. Justice Fabe, joined by Justice Christen, dissented, concluding that the fee provision did not cover post-judgment collection costs.