Construction, $100,732.50. Finally, we turn to respondents’ statements of costs and disbursements. Plaintiff has objected to the $100 prevailing-party fee, allowed by ORS 20.190(l)(a), requested by each respondent because, under ORAP 13.05(6)(d)(iii), only one prevailing-party fee totaling $100 may be awarded against plaintiff. Plaintiff is correct. ORAP 13.05(6)(d)(iii) provides that a court may not “award more than one prevailing party fee against a nonprevailing party, regardless of the number of parties in the action.” See also ORS 20.190(4) (“A court may not award *** more than one prevailing party fee against a nonprevailing party regardless of the number of parties in the action [.]”); Seida v. West Linn-Wilsonville School Dist. 3 J T, 169 Or App 418, 427-28, 9 P3d 150 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we award a prevailing-party fee
holding that prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants seeking attorney fees are to be treated alike holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees holding that a defendant is the prevailing party within the meaning of statutory provisions awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party even when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action holding that ors 201904 is meant to prevent a nonprevailing party from incurring a larger penalty merely because there are multiple prevailing parties in the action and concluding that the trial court did not err in splitting the prevailingparty fee among the prevailing defendants