Case Caption: Daniel Dacosta v. Selma Dacosta Case Number: SCT-CIV-2019-0061Date: 06/15/2021Author: Hodge, Rhys S. Citation: 2021 VI 11Summary: Because the Legislature enacted 5 V.I.C. § 541 with the purpose of abrogating the “American Rule” against routine recovery of attorney’s fees, this Court liberally and broadly construes the phrase “prevailing party” in that statute, in light of the Legislature’s intent to indemnify the party that is not at fault in the litigation. Since, in this case, the ex-wife prevailed on every disputed issue and obtained a monetary award far greater than monies she consented to pay the ex-husband, the Superior Court committed no error when it determined that she was the prevailing party and granted her motion for an award of $3,098.70 in attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, the Superior Court’s July 17, 2019 order is affirmed.Attachment: Open Document or Opinion