## Facts

- Edward and Debra Troutman bought a new Schult-manufactured mobile home from Pierce, Inc. in March 1982.
- After installation, various minor defects were repaired, but a continuing moisture/water intrusion problem persisted, causing saturated walls, water on floors, and warped siding.
- In September 1983, the Troutmans notified the sellers/manufacturer of the ongoing water problem and attempted repairs, then sought to revoke acceptance of the home; Pierce refused the revocation.
- The Troutmans sued Pierce and Schult for revocation of acceptance, damages, costs and disbursements, and attorney’s fees; Pierce cross-claimed against Schult for contribution or indemnity.
- The Troutmans moved out of the home in January 1984.
- A jury found Schult (but not Pierce) breached express and implied warranties; both defendants received reasonable notice and opportunity to cure; substantial unremedied defects attributable to Schult substantially impaired the home’s value; revocation of acceptance was justified.
- The trial court entered judgment granting revocation of acceptance against Schult and awarded damages and attorney’s fees, reducing the requested fees by 15%; it also awarded costs and disbursements including counsel’s travel and lodging.

## Issues

1. Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, did the trial court abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees where the plaintiffs did not prevail on all issues and against all defendants?
2. Does the Act allow recovery of litigation-related expenses such as travel and lodging as part of “costs and expenses” reasonably incurred?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the attorney’s fee award, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees despite the plaintiffs’ limited lack of success against Pierce.
- The court upheld the 15% reduction as a reasonable adjustment reflecting partial success.
- The court affirmed the award of travel and lodging expenses as recoverable “costs and expenses” reasonably incurred in prosecuting the warranty action.
- The judgment was affirmed and the case remanded for determination of costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A prevailing consumer under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act may recover reasonable “costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees based on actual time expended)” incurred in commencing and prosecuting the action.
- Prevailing-party status and fee awards do not require success on every claim or against every defendant; the trial court may reduce the award to reflect limited success.
- “Costs and expenses” under Magnuson-Moss may include reasonably incurred litigation expenses beyond traditional taxable costs, including travel and lodging necessary to prosecute the case.
- Revocation of acceptance is appropriate when unremedied defects substantially impair the value of the goods to the buyer after reasonable notice and opportunity to cure.

## Conclusion

The court held that Magnuson-Moss authorizes reasonable attorney’s fees and related litigation expenses for a consumer who substantially prevails on a warranty-based revocation claim, even if the consumer does not win against every defendant, and it approved recovery of travel and lodging as reasonably incurred case expenses.


Troutman v. Pierce, Inc., 402 N.W.2d 920 (N.D. 1987)