Do they expect a attorney to take a case for only $250?

[ApplePhone]

No, I'm suggesting that you are the troll.

An internet troll is a person who intentionally tries to instigate arguments in an online community.

You keep repeating the same points over and over again to provoke responses which, unfortunately, continue.

Did you read the part where an Attorney from the state in question said that its per hour.

Did you read the part where I followed up in the comments pointing out the objections raised on this forum that if you look at it word for word, the hour part is missing but he assured me this is per hour?

Did you read the part that I also emailed him saying the per hour part was left out of the rules and asked if he was certain he did not misread or interoperate the laws and he said that and well understood term in the industry that this amount is per hour.

So you have no expertise in the matter or even are from Utah however you know more then the attorney from the state? How should I know who is right? I honestly have no idea who is right and its not obviously to anyone. I am quoting the Utah attorney and the follows up yet your issue is with me not the attorney telling me this? How does that work exactly?

One might say that you are the troll for declaring you know more about Utah law than a Utah attorney?

 

[ApplePhone]

The term is VERY clear.

Well, its not clear to the Utah Attorney who tell me is an well know industry standard this per hour not total. I'm suppose to tell an attorney he is wrong because a non-attorney said its clear? Also, you should apologize for suggesting I asked the question in a sneaky way to get a wrong answer. I asked the question the exact same way it was listed on here and even had a follow point out the objections I read here about it not appearing and he double down and later tripled down said he is CERTAIN and that its established fact in the industry. Honestly have no idea who is right and its not obviously to anyone.

Supreme court reverses its own decision even without any law changing so maybe there is an element on how its understood in the industry vs what its just written on paper.

 

[ApplePhone]

I can see where ApplePhone might be confused by the wording of the statute, especially when he is receiving a conflicting answer elsewhere.

Not everyone understands that under the “American Rule” (which Utah courts generally follow) each party is responsible for paying their own attorney fees. A party generally can only recover attorney fees when that party has prevailed in the litigation and there is a contract between the parties or a statute that allows for attorney fee recovery.

Not everyone who posts a question to this forum is a troll if they ask for additional clarification.

Thank you.

The Utah attorney has told me 3 times that the $250 in that statue is a per hour amount its referring to and that its understood in the industry and he is certain of it.

If they attorney is telling me bad information, that would make him the troll not me. He seems to be very confident he is telling me the correct information and said that all the lawyers in Utah know this to be true. If anything, he might consider me a troll to keep bringing up the point that the law does not spell it out as clear as he understands it.

So I remain confused as the correct answer is not obvious considering the 'experts" are telling me conflicting information.

So either this forum is right or the UT attorney is right. I am just trying to figure out which one .

 

[Zigner]

Frankly, I don't believe an attorney who practices in UT told you that.

 

[adjusterjack]

OK, you're not a troll.

The Utah attorney has told me 3 times that the $250 in that statue is a per hour amount its referring to and that its understood in the industry and he is certain of it.

Of course, he and his "industry" would say that. They WANT to charge $250 per hour, not cap it at $250.

So either this forum is right or the UT attorney is right. I am just trying to figure out which one .

All I know is what I read in the statute. I don't read what's not in the statute.

The statute says "not to exceed $250."

I'm going with $250 until an appellate court judge says otherwise. I have not found any case law addressing the issue.

I did, however, find three proposed amendments to the criminal trespass statutes, none of which saw fit to amend or clarify the $250 limit on attorney fees.

HB0208.pdf (utah.gov)

SB0219S01.pdf (utah.gov)

SB0068.pdf (utah.gov)

Also keep in mind that $250 is not the limit that a lawyer can charge you, it's a limit on how much you can recover from the defendant if you have to hire a lawyer to recover the cost of damage to your property.

 

[Zigner]

Also keep in mind that $250 is not the limit that a lawyer can charge you, it's a limit on how much you can recover from the defendant if you have to hire a lawyer to recover the cost of damage to your property.

I think this is the explanation for the disconnect in this thread. The attorney can charge whatever s/he wants, but the plaintiff can only recover up to $250 of that from the defendant.

 

[quincy]

Thank you.

The Utah attorney has told me 3 times that the $250 in that statue is a per hour amount its referring to and that its understood in the industry and he is certain of it.

If they attorney is telling me bad information, that would make him the troll not me. He seems to be very confident he is telling me the correct information and said that all the lawyers in Utah know this to be true. If anything, he might consider me a troll to keep bringing up the point that the law does not spell it out as clear as he understands it.

So I remain confused as the correct answer is not obvious considering the 'experts" are telling me conflicting information.

So either this forum is right or the UT attorney is right. I am just trying to figure out which one .

The attorney seems to be relying on AI for an interpretation of the statute. AI is incorrect.

An attorney can file for attorney fees that exceed $250 by following the process outlined in the link I provided earlier, however the criminal trespass statute allows only for an award of $250 total, and this $250 is at the court’s discretion.

 

[ApplePhone]

Frankly, I don't believe an attorney who practices in UT told you that.

Well, other forum moderators on this website have seen my post themselves and confirmed it on this forum. Direct quote word for word " I am certain it is a per hour fee. Candidly, in the industry it is understood. "

So its industry slang.

 

[ApplePhone]

The attorney seems to be relying on AI for an interpretation of the statute. AI is incorrect.

An attorney can file for attorney fees that exceed $250 by following the process outlined in the link I provided earlier, however the criminal trespass statute allows only for an award of $250 total, and this $250 is at the court’s discretion.

Where do you see that he is getting answers from AI and not from his experience in the industry?

 

[quincy]

Well, other forum moderators on this website have seen my post themselves and confirmed it on this forum. Direct quote word for word " I am certain it is a per hour fee. Candidly, in the industry it is understood. "

So its industry slang.

You cannot insert “industry slang” into a statute to make it say what you want it to say.

Yes, I saw the attorney’s answer and he erred. Perhaps he has placed more faith in AI than he should.

[incorrect information deleted]

I guess for a definitive answer you will just have to test out the criminal trespassing statute in court to see for yourself how the attorney fee award is applied.

 

[adjusterjack]

As a note: It is the prevailing party who can be awarded $250 in attorney fees under the criminal trespassing statute so both the attorney for the plaintiff or the attorney for the defendant could be eligible for the $250.

Ha Ha. Now you're doing what appleiphone is doing - putting words into the statute that aren't there.

(4)

In addition to an order for restitution under Section 77-38b-205, an actor who commits any violation of Subsection (2) may also be liable for: (a) statutory damages in the amount of three times the value of damages resulting from the violation of Subsection (2) or $500, whichever is greater; (b) reasonable attorney fees not to exceed $250; and (c) court costs.

It's the actor who commits the trespass that is liable for the owner's attorney fees.

 

[quincy]

Ha Ha. Now you're doing what appleiphone is doing - putting words into the statute that aren't there.

(4)

In addition to an order for restitution under Section 77-38b-205, an actor who commits any violation of Subsection (2) may also be liable for: (a) statutory damages in the amount of three times the value of damages resulting from the violation of Subsection (2) or $500, whichever is greater; (b) reasonable attorney fees not to exceed $250; and (c) court costs.

It's the actor who commits the trespass that is liable for the owner's attorney fees.

Oops. I blame AI.

(I deleted the incorrect information)

 

[adjusterjack]

I also see nothing in this thread to suggest that appleiphone's attorney source relied on AI.

 

[quincy]

I also see nothing in this thread to suggest that appleiphone's attorney source relied on AI.

You see nothing in this thread because I am not linking to the legal website where ApplePhone posted the same question he asked here.

 

[adjusterjack]

You mean there is a legal forum that I don't know about?

Message it to me please.