raiser was litigated) was brought by Guardian Ad Litem, and his fees in doing so were adjudged against Harter. Guardian does not demonstrate how any issue involving those funds also provides a basis for an award of her attorney’s fees. Guardian fails to demonstrate that this case constitutes an unusual type of case, or unusually complicated litigation, in order to qualify under the “very unusual circumstances” exception to the “American Rule.” For that reason alone, it is necessary that we reverse the portion of the judgment awarding Guardian her attorney’s fees. In further support of reversal of the award of Guardian’s attorney’s fees, however, is the fact that such an award is unsupported by substantial evidence. See Estate of Zeppenfeld, 593 S.W.2d 890, 894-95 (Mo.App. E.D.1979) (<HOLDING>). The evidence in this case was heard on
holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees holding that a public administrator was not entitled to attorneys fees in a claim against the estate of a former guardian where the case was not one where attorneys fees were authorized and there was no evidence to support the award holding trial court had no authority to award attorneys fees when arbitrator had stated he would not award attorneys fees holding that an award of attorneys fees under supreme court rule 38 precursor to rule 222 did not preempt an award of attorneys fees to which one is otherwise entitled and thus appellant could seek an award of attorneys fees pursuant to section 1577300 which permits an award of fees for a party prevailing in an action against a state agency holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue