v. Gen. Motors Corp., 195 Ariz. 510, 514, 990 P.2d 1069, 1073 (Ct.App.1999); Collins v. Miller & Miller, Ltd., 189 Ariz. 387, 397, 943 P.2d 747, 757 (Ct.App.1996). (2) Hufford requests attorneys’s fees for both the district court action and this appeal. Because Hufford has not appealed the district court’s order denying fees, that issue is not properly before us. He is not entitled to fees on appeal. Under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-341.01, a court may grant reasonable attorney’s fees to the successful party in “any contested action arising out of a contract, express or implied.” This is not an action “arising out of a contract;” it is a claim of wrongful issuance of an opinion letter by an attorney. See Morris v. Achen Constr. Co., Inc., 155 Ariz. 512, 514, 747 P.2d 1211, 1213 (Sup.Ct.1987) (<HOLDING>); cf. Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners A-D,
holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party holding that third party may petition to cancel fraudulently obtained trademark registration holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant holding that fraudulently inducing one to enter into a contract with a third party is not the type of tort falling within the ambit of ars  1234101a