Following a seven‑day civil trial concerning a prescriptive easement and negligent misrepresentation regarding a shared waterline, the successful plaintiff sought costs exceeding $300,000 after obtaining a declaration that no easement existed and damages of $25,500 against one defendant.
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to costs as the successful party and that her Rule 49 offer justified partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.
However, the court found the claimed fees and disbursements excessive and disproportionate to the result achieved, particularly given the plaintiff’s unsuccessful fraud and punitive damages claims and the large damages claim that was not proven.
Exercising discretion under Rule 57, the court reduced the fees by approximately 50% and disallowed certain expert and research disbursements.
Costs were allocated between the defendants in proportion to their responsibility for the issues at trial.
