In this residential FED proceeding, defendant tenant appeals the denial of his motion for attorney fees under ORS 90.255. We reverse and remand.

Plaintiffs filed an FED action against defendant in district court seeking possession of rental property that defendant occupied. ORS 105.105 et seq. Defendant filed an answer, which included the affirmative defense that plaintiff’s notice to terminate was defective. ORS 90.400(l)(a); 24 CFR § 882.511 (1995). 1 Before trial, defendant filed a motion under ORCP 21 A(5) 2 to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not comply with the notice requirements of ORS 90.400(l)(a). 3 Specifically, defendant argued that plaintiffs’ notice failed to provide defendant with a 14-day opportunity to cure any breach of the rental agreement. 4 Defendant also sought costs and attorney fees. The court found that defendant was the prevailing party but denied an award of attorney fees.

*173 Defendant assigns the denial of attorney fees as error. We review for abuse of discretion. Tanner v. Grissom, 135 Or App 309, 311, 898 P2d 797 (1995). ORS 90.255 provides:

“In any action on a rental agreement or arising under [ORS 90.100 to 90.940], reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal may be awarded to the prevailing party together with costs and necessary disbursements, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary. As used in this section, ‘prevailing part/ means the party in whose favor final judgment is rendered.”

Defendant argues that in the absence of unusual circumstances a trial court must award attorney fees under ORS 90.255 to the prevailing party, Executive Mgt. Corp. v. Juckett, 274 Or 515, 519, 547 P2d 603 (1976), and that there were no unusual circumstances in this case to support the denial of attorney fees. Plaintiffs waived appearance on appeal.

The Supreme Court has held that, although ORS 90.255 provides that the award of attorney fees is discretionary, a prevailing party shall typically recover attorney fees, in the absence of unusual circumstances. Executive Mgt. Corp., 274 Or at 519. Here, the court found that defendant was the prevailing party. The issue, therefore, is whether there were unusual circumstances to support the court’s decision to deny defendant attorney fees.

We have held that an inconclusive outcome in an FED proceeding, where one party is awarded possession and the other party prevails on a counterclaim for damages, constitutes an unusual circumstance. See Tanner, 135 Or App at 312. In this case, there was no inconclusive outcome.

The court denied attorney fees on the ground that defendant was represented by a legal aid attorney who purportedly spent an excessive amount of time on the case and that the local filing fee assessments in Wallowa and Union counties made approximately $13,000 available to Legal Aid. Those grounds do not constitute unusual circumstances, and, therefore, do not support the denial of any fees whatsoever. West v. French, 51 Or App 143, 153, 625 P2d 144 (1981).

*174 The trial court did find that the case could reasonably have required some attorney work. Under the circumstances, the court should have awarded defendant reasonable attorney fees.

Denial of attorney fees reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.