Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1 (2026)
General recovery rule
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. (a) In all civil actions, the party recovering judgment shall recover costs, except in those cases in which a different provision is made by law.
(b) In any civil action, the court may award attorney's fees as part of the cost to the prevailing party, if the court finds that either party:
(1) brought the action or defense on a claim or defense that is frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless;
(2) continued to litigate the action or defense after the party's claim or defense clearly became frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless; or
(3) litigated the action in bad faith.
(c) The award of fees under subsection (b) does not prevent a prevailing party from bringing an action against another party for abuse of process arising in any part on the same facts. However, the prevailing party may not recover the same attorney's fees twice.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-1-32-1.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.48.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 277
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Crosson v. Berry, 829 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Crosson v. Berry, 829 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Berry filed a motion for summary judgment in which he: (1) sought summary judgment on his claim for unpaid attorney fees from his representation of Crosson in her federal lawsuit; (2) sought summary judgment on Crosson's counterclaim of attorney malpractice; and (3) moved for…”
Turner v. Bd. of Aviation Commissioners, 743 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “In Indiana, Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1 governs the award of attorney fees for litigating in bad faith or for pursuing frivolous claims.”
R.L. Turner Corp. v. Town of Brownsburg, 963 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2012). “Citing Indiana Code § 34-52-1-1 (2008) and arguing that any attempt to force a withdrawal or any suit for tortious interference would be frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless, Steele warned Einterz that the Town and BMBC would seek attorneys' fees if Turner filed suit.”
Harco, Inc. of Indianapolis v. Plainfield Interstate Fam. Dining Assocs., 758 N.E.2d 931 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Plainfield seeks damages against Harco and Harding on the theories of Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution, Slander of Title, Frivolous Litigation pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1 and Deception, pursuant to Ind.”
N. Elec. Co., Inc. v. Torma, 819 N.E.2d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Code § 34-24-8-1; (4) Whether the trial court erred in concluding that Torma did not breach his fiduciary duty to Northern Electric; and (5) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys' *420 fees pursuant to I.C. § 34-52-1-1 based on the finding that…”
Chapo v. Jefferson Cnty. Plan Comm'n, 926 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “The statutory authority for the recovery of costs is found in Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1, the general recovery statute, which provides that "[iln all civil actions, the party recovering judgment shall recover costs, except in those cases in which a different provision is made by law.”
In Re Paternity of PEM, 818 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “In particular, Mazza alleges that an award of attorney's fees pursuant to I.C. § 34-52-1-1 is proper since the Merklers withdrew their petition to modify custody on the day of trial.”
Landmark Legacy, LP & Dennis W. Fahlsing v. Dennis Runkle, D.R. Fin. Inc., & D.R. Fin. Grp., Inc., 81 N.E.3d 1107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “In addition, Runkle, Financial, and Financial Group requested an award of attorney fees for Appellants’ groundless and frivolous litigation, pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1 . At the same time, Attorney Wray also filed a motion for summary judgment.”
SLR Plumbing & Sewer, Inc. v. Turk, 757 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees to Owners pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1. We affirm in part and reverse in part.”
Knowledge A-Z, Inc. v. Sentry Ins., 857 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Sentry then filed a motion to strike Knowledge's improper submission of evidence (the March 24th letter), an objection to the motion to disqualify counsel, and a petition for fees pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1 . Knowledge responded by filing: (1) a "Preliminary Response" to…”
SJS Refractory Co. v. Empire Refractory Sales, Inc., 952 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Whether the trial court erred in awarding Empire attorney fees as a sanction pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a calculation of damages consistent with this opinion.”
Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Laura B. Coyne, Cheryl A. O'Mailia, & James O'Mailia, 7 N.E.3d 300 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “On March 21, 2013, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Addressing the O’Mailias’ Motion for a New Trial (the “March 21 Order”), in which the court denied the O’Mailias’ request for a new trial but granted their request for attorney fees based upon Ind. Code…”
Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(1): 1 case
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Rood, 784 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(6): 1 case
SLR Plumbing & Sewer, Inc. v. Turk, 757 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees to Owners pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1. We affirm in part and reverse in part.”
Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(a): 7 cases
R.L. Turner Corp. v. Town of Brownsburg, 963 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2012). “Citing Indiana Code § 34-52-1-1 (2008) and arguing that any attempt to force a withdrawal or any suit for tortious interference would be frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless, Steele warned Einterz that the Town and BMBC would seek attorneys' fees if Turner filed suit.”
Com. Coin Laundry Sys. v. Enneking, 766 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Paternity of PEM, 818 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “In particular, Mazza alleges that an award of attorney's fees pursuant to I.C. § 34-52-1-1 is proper since the Merklers withdrew their petition to modify custody on the day of trial.”
Missi v. CCC Custom Kitchens, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Lacey v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 959 N.E.2d 936 (Ind. T.C. 2011).
Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b): 98 cases
Crosson v. Berry, 829 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Berry filed a motion for summary judgment in which he: (1) sought summary judgment on his claim for unpaid attorney fees from his representation of Crosson in her federal lawsuit; (2) sought summary judgment on Crosson's counterclaim of attorney malpractice; and (3) moved for…”
R.L. Turner Corp. v. Town of Brownsburg, 963 N.E.2d 453 (Ind. 2012). “Citing Indiana Code § 34-52-1-1 (2008) and arguing that any attempt to force a withdrawal or any suit for tortious interference would be frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless, Steele warned Einterz that the Town and BMBC would seek attorneys' fees if Turner filed suit.”
Chapo v. Jefferson Cnty. Plan Comm'n, 926 N.E.2d 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “The statutory authority for the recovery of costs is found in Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1, the general recovery statute, which provides that "[iln all civil actions, the party recovering judgment shall recover costs, except in those cases in which a different provision is made by law.”
Gersh Zavodnik v. Irene Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. 2014).
Gerstbauer v. Styers, 898 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b)(1): 7 cases
Turner v. Bd. of Aviation Commissioners, 743 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “In Indiana, Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1 governs the award of attorney fees for litigating in bad faith or for pursuing frivolous claims.”
Parks v. Madison Cnty., 783 N.E.2d 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Visitation of AR, 723 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Clevenger v. Progressive Nw. Ins. Co., 838 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Sexton v. Rowe, 723 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b)(2): 6 cases
James C. Purcell v. Old Nat'l Bank, 972 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2012).
Smyth v. Hester, 901 N.E.2d 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Lacey v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 959 N.E.2d 936 (Ind. T.C. 2011).
Ks v. Bw, 954 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Indiana Comm'r of Labor, on the Relation of Heather Chamness v. J.D. Byrider Sys., LLC (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b)(3): 8 cases
Patel v. United Fire & Cas. Co., 80 F. Supp. 2d 948 (N.D. Ind. 2000).
Turner v. Bd. of Aviation Commissioners, 743 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “In Indiana, Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1 governs the award of attorney fees for litigating in bad faith or for pursuing frivolous claims.”
Techna-Fit, Inc. & Stuart Trotter v. Fluid Transfer Prods., Inc., 45 N.E.3d 399 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
K.R. Calvert Co., LLC, & Philip Davis v. Brian Sandys & Jennifer Sandys (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
Joshua A. Hinman v. Members Choice Fed. Credit Union (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(b)(8): 1 case
Turner v. Bd. of Aviation Commissioners, 743 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “In Indiana, Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1 governs the award of attorney fees for litigating in bad faith or for pursuing frivolous claims.”
Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1(c): 4 cases
Crosson v. Berry, 829 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “Berry filed a motion for summary judgment in which he: (1) sought summary judgment on his claim for unpaid attorney fees from his representation of Crosson in her federal lawsuit; (2) sought summary judgment on Crosson's counterclaim of attorney malpractice; and (3) moved for…”
Srivastava v. Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, Inc., 779 N.E.2d 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Harco, Inc. of Indianapolis v. Plainfield Interstate Fam. Dining Assocs., 758 N.E.2d 931 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Plainfield seeks damages against Harco and Harding on the theories of Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution, Slander of Title, Frivolous Litigation pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1 and Deception, pursuant to Ind.”
Leroy Burke, Jr. v. Matthew Elkin (mem. dec.), 51 N.E.3d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.