96-724

 No. 96-724

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

1997

CHERYL H. KELLEHER, and Others Similarly Situated, a Class,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

BOARD OF SOCIAL WORK EXAMINERS AND LICENSED

PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE;

MARY MEIS; C. JAMES ARMSTRONG; ANTOINETTE F. ROSELL;

PATRICK WOLBERD; ERVIN BOOTH; LETA A. LIVOTI; and

RICHARD A. SIMONTON, Members of said Board; ALLAN ELLIOTT, 

Director of the Department of Commerce,

 Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Silver Bow

 The Honorable James E. Purcell, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellants:

 Robert C. Kelleher, Kelleher Law Office, Butte, Montana

 For Respondents:

 Carol Grell, Special Assistant Attorney General, Department

 of Commerce, Helena, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: May 30, 1997

 Decided: June 17, 1997

Filed:

 __________________________________________

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-724%20Opinion.htm (1 of 4)4/12/2007 12:20:35 PM
96-724

 Clerk

Justice Jim Regnier delivered the Opinion of the Court.

 Cheryl Kelleher appeals from the order of the Second Judicial District Court,

Silver Bow County, denying her motion for costs and attorney fees arising from her

petition for writ of mandamus based on the doctrine of laches. We reverse and remand

to the District Court.

 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in concluding that 

Kelleher

is barred by the doctrine of laches from asserting her claim for allowance of costs 

and

attorney fees in bringing a petition for writ of mandamus.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 On June 30, 1992, Cheryl Kelleher filed an application with the Board of Social

Work Examiners and Licensed Professional Counselors ("Board") to sit for the 

September

4, 1992, professional counselor examination. The application was submitted to the

application review committee on July 13, 1992. The committee determined the

application contained certain deficiencies, and notified Kelleher of these 

deficiencies and

her right to appeal their determination that she could not sit for the September 

exam. 

Kelleher filed a complaint for damages and petition for writ of mandamus and 

application

for preliminary injunction. The complaint included a prayer for an award of 

reasonable

attorney fees and costs.

 After a show cause hearing was held on August 19, 1992, the District Court

entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, order and memorandum. The court

directed the Board to allow Kelleher to sit for the scheduled September 1992 

examination. 

No further communication from Kelleher was received by the Board until May 1996

when she attempted to serve discovery documents regarding her demand for attorney 

fees.

Kelleher subsequently moved the court for summary judgment on the issues of costs and

attorney fees. A hearing was held on this motion on September 26, 1996. After the

conclusion of the hearing, the District Court entered an order stating that although

Kelleher was entitled to an award of damages pursuant to 27-26-402, MCA, she was

barred from recovering damages by the doctrine of laches. Kelleher appeals from this

order.

DISCUSSION

 Did the District Court err in concluding that Kelleher is barred by the 

doctrine of

laches from asserting her claim for allowance of costs and attorney fees in bringing 

a

petition for writ of mandamus?

 The standard of review of a district court's conclusions of law is whether the

court's interpretation of the law is correct. Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal 

Co.

(1995), 271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686.

 Kelleher asserts that the doctrine of laches does not apply because her actions 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-724%20Opinion.htm (2 of 4)4/12/2007 12:20:35 PM
96-724

in

seeking relief were not negligent and the Board has suffered no prejudice from the 

delay. 

The Board contends that Kelleher did sleep on her rights and, therefore, fails to 

meet the

statute requiring vigilance in pursuing a claim. The Board further argues that it 

has been

prejudiced by Kelleher's delay.

 Section 1-3-218, MCA, provides that "[t]he law protects the vigilant before 

those

who sleep on their rights." Laches is a concept of equity that can apply when a 

person

is negligent in asserting a right, and can apply where there has been an unexplained 

delay

of such duration or character as to render the enforcement of the asserted rights

inequitable. In re Marriage of Hahn and Cladouhos (1994), 263 Mont. 315, 318, 868

P.2d 599, 601; Filler v. Richland County (1991), 247 Mont. 285, 290, 806 P.2d 537,

540. 

 In addressing the Board's claim of laches, we do not need to reach the issue of

whether Kelleher was negligent in pursuing her right to collect fees and costs, nor 

do we

need to address her explanations of this delay. In order to apply the doctrine of 

laches,

a showing must be made that the passage of time has prejudiced the party asserting 

laches

or has rendered the enforcement of a right inequitable. Helena Aerie No. 16, F.O.E. 

v.

Department of Revenue (1991), 251 Mont. 77, 81, 822 P.2d 1057, 1059; Brabender v.

Kit Mfg. Co. (1977), 174 Mont. 63, 67-68, 568 P.2d 547, 549. Each case must be

determined on its own unique facts. Hahn, 868 P.2d at 601; Filler, 806 P.2d at 540.

 The Board offers four examples of how it was prejudiced by Kelleher's delay in

asserting her right to attorney fees and costs. First, it argues that the Board 

member

composition has changed, causing testimony from members involved in the original

license application process to be lost. Second, the Board argues that it has 

implemented

rule changes which affect the method of evaluating applications and has caused the

process in Kelleher's case to be clouded. The Board next asserts that due to the 

passage

of time it has lost the ability to recreate the time involved by its own staff and 

by counsel

for Kelleher. Finally, the Board contends that it has suffered prejudice because it 

has

passed through several biennial budgeting processes without the knowledge of the

substantial claim for costs and attorney fees. 

 We do not find these assertions to constitute the required showing of prejudice 

for 

application of the doctrine of laches. The issue of an award or determination of 

fees and

costs does not require any inquiry into the license application process itself. The 

Board

does not need to recreate, nor can it reconstruct the time expended by Kelleher's 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-724%20Opinion.htm (3 of 4)4/12/2007 12:20:35 PM
96-724

counsel,

as it is not within the knowledge of the Board. The time involved in this matter by 

the

Board's staff is irrelevant to the determination of Kelleher's attorney fees and 

costs. The

Board's assertion that it has completed several budgeting processes since the 

original

petition was granted does not demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the Board is

presumed to be aware of the law. Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Gallatin County

(1929), 84 Mont. 98, 274 P. 288. It is clear that under 27-26-402, MCA, a party 

who

is successful in obtaining a writ of mandamus is entitled to damages. These damages

under 27-26-402, MCA, may include attorney fees and costs. Kadillak v. Department

of State Lands (1982), 198 Mont. 70, 74, 643 P.2d 1178, 1181. The Board, thus, is

charged with the knowledge that Kelleher had a pending right to claim attorney fees 

and

costs arising from her successful petition for writ of mandamus. 

 We hold, therefore, that with no showing of actual prejudice, Kelleher is not

barred by the doctrine of laches from recovering her fees and costs arising from her

petition for writ of mandamus. We reverse and remand to the District Court for a

determination and award of the attorney fees and costs.

 

 /S/ JIM REGNIER 

We Concur:

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-724%20Opinion.htm (4 of 4)4/12/2007 12:20:35 PM