by the jury to have breached the contract. On May 14, 2001, Dewberry filed a notice of appeal to this court. II. A. On appeal, Dewberry first contends that the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and costs violated Virginia law by failing to give effect to the provision for attorneys’ fees and costs in the parties’ contract. We generally review a district court’s decision awarding or denying attorneys’ fees and costs for abuse of discretion. Hitachi Credit America Corp. v. Signet Bank, 166 F.3d 614, 631 (4th Cir.1999). Insofar as the district court’s ruling was premised on a question of substantive contract law as opposed to an exercise of its discretion, however, we review the denial of attorneys’ fees and costs de novo. See, e.g., Smyth v. Rivero, 282 F.3d 268 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Perry v. Bartlett, 231 F.3d 155, 163 (4th
holding parties agreement provided clear contractual justification for the award of costs and expenses including attorneys fees to the prevailing party holding that we review legal conclusions of the court of federal claims de novo holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo holding that although we typically review award or denial of attorneys fees and costs for an abuse of discretion where district court denies attorneys fees and costs based upon legal determination that a party is not a prevailing party we review the determination de novo recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs