- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 35217/35943

IN RE SRBA, CASE NO. 39576 SUBCASE 

NOS: 45-13792 AND 45-13793.

--------------------------------------------------------

BRUCE BYRON BEDKE, JARED K. 

BEDKE,

 Appellants,

v.

CITY OF OAKLEY,

 Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Boise, January 2010 Term

2010 Opinion No. 29

Filed: March 18, 2010

Stephen Kenyon, Clerk

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, 

Twin Falls County. Hon. John M. Melanson, District Judge.

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Bruce Byron Bedke and Jared K. Bedke, Oakley, appellants pro se. Jared Bedke

argued.

Capitol Law Group, PLLC, Gooding, for respondent. David Heida argued.

 _______________________________________________

HORTON, Justice

This is a consolidated appeal from the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) district 

court‘s orders disallowing Bruce and Jared Bedkes‘ claimed water rights and awarding the City

of Oakley (the City) attorney fees. We affirm and award the City attorney fees and costs on 

appeal. 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Up until 1991, the Bedkes used water from the City‘s pipeline and paid for such use. In 

1991, the pipeline was cut and capped by the City below the Bedkes‘ property and a new 

agreement for water usage was proposed by the City to the Bedkes. Bruce Bedke did not sign 
- 2 -

the agreement and ceased payment for water delivered under claimed right 45-13793. The 

Bedkes continued to pay for water delivered under claimed right 45-13792. 

On September 7, 2004, the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources 

(IDWR) filed the director‘s report for Basin 45, recommending the Bedkes‘ claimed water rights 

numbered 45-13792 and 45-13793 be disallowed. The Bedkes objected to the recommendation 

that their claims be disallowed, asserting that they had met all the elements required for 

establishing those rights. The City responded to the Bedkes‘ objection, stating that the Bedkes‘ 

claimed water rights were simply derived from the City‘s pipeline and thus, the Bedkes were 

claiming water rights belonging to the City. On April 10, 2006, the parties filed a joint statement 

of facts and eventually both filed motions for summary judgment. 

On December 13, 2006, the special master denied the Bedkes‘ request for summary 

judgment, granted the City‘s request for summary judgment, and recommended that the Bedkes‘ 

claimed water rights be disallowed. A week later, on December 20, 2006, the City filed a 

memorandum of costs and fees, requesting an award of attorney fees pursuant to I.C. §§ 12-120, 

12-121, and 12-123. The Bedkes filed a memorandum in opposition to the City‘s motion for 

costs and fees on March 7, 2007, arguing in part that the City could not be entitled to attorney 

fees at that stage of the litigation because the outcome had not yet been decided at the district 

court and thus the prevailing party had yet to be determined—a requirement for an award of 

attorney fees. The City responded on March 13, 2007, by moving to strike the Bedkes‘ 

memorandum in opposition, arguing that such memorandum was untimely. 

In the meantime, on January 26, 2007, the Bedkes filed a motion to alter or amend the 

special master‘s recommendation. On January 30, 2008, the special master issued an order 

denying the Bedkes‘ motion to alter or amend, granting the City‘s motion to strike the Bedkes‘ 

memorandum in opposition to the City‘s motion for costs and attorney fees, and recommending 

that the district court award the City attorney fees. The deadline for objecting to the 

recommendation regarding attorney fees was set on the special master‘s calendar for February 

28, 2008. 

On February 27, 2008, the Bedkes filed a notice of challenge to the special master‘s 

orders denying the Bedkes‘ motion to alter or amend the recommendation that their claimed 

water rights be disallowed, granting the City‘s motion to strike, and recommending an award to 

the City of attorney fees incurred in connection with the summary judgment proceedings. Along 
- 3 -

with this notice of challenge, the Bedkes filed a motion asking the district court, pursuant to 

I.R.C.P. 55(c), to deem the challenge to the special master‘s denial of their motion to alter or 

amend the recommendation of disallowance as having been timely filed. This motion was filed 

because the 14-day deadline for filing such a challenge, as prescribed in Administrative Order 

(AO) 1, § 13(c), had already passed. On February 29, 2008, the City filed a motion to strike the 

Bedkes‘ challenge as untimely. 

On March 11, 2008, the district court issued an order denying the Bedkes‘ motion to 

deem their challenge as timely, granting the City‘s motion to strike the challenge, and 

disallowing the Bedkes‘ claimed water rights. The district court found that the portion of the 

Bedkes‘ challenge regarding the special master‘s recommendation of attorney fees was timely

when considered as a motion to alter or amend the special master‘s recommendation on fees and 

recommitted the issue of attorney fees to the special master for further action. The district court 

certified this order as final, pursuant to I.R.C.P. 54(b). 

On March 18, 2008, the Bedkes filed a motion asking the district court to reconsider its 

March 11, 2008 order. The district court denied that motion on March 24, 2008. On April 17, 

2008, the Bedkes filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court‘s order denying their 

motion to deem their challenge timely filed and disallowing their claimed water rights and from 

the court‘s denial of their motion to reconsider. This Court assigned the appeal Docket No. 

35217.

Upon recommitment, the special master considered the Bedkes‘ motion to alter or amend 

its recommendation regarding attorney fees and, on April 9, 2008, denied the motion. On April 

17, 2008, the Bedkes filed with the district court a notice of challenge to the special master‘s 

order denying their motion to alter or amend the recommendation regarding attorney fees. On 

April 21, 2008, the City filed a second motion for costs and fees along with an accompanying 

memorandum, seeking to recover the costs and fees it incurred after the filing of its original 

motion for attorney fees. The Bedkes filed a motion to disallow the City‘s second motion for 

attorney fees, arguing inter alia that the City‘s memorandum of costs and fees was not verified. 

In response, on May 2, 2008, the City filed a second, verified memorandum of costs and attorney 

fees. On October 30, 2008, the district court affirmed the special master‘s order striking the 

Bedkes‘ memorandum in opposition to the City‘s motion for costs and attorney fees and adopted 

the special master‘s recommendation that the City be awarded attorney fees pursuant to I.C. §
- 4 -

12-121. That same day the district court entered judgment for the City against the Bedkes in the 

amount of $11,427.34. At oral argument, the Bedkes acknowledged that they paid the judgment 

under threat of a sheriff‘s sale. 

On November 14, 2008, the Bedkes filed a motion to reconsider the district court‘s 

October 30th order. On that same day, the Bedkes also filed a motion to strike the City‘s second 

motion and verified memorandum of costs and attorney fees, because the motion and 

memorandum were not filed within 14 days of the final judgment as required by I.R.C.P. 

54(d)(5). On December 10, 2008, the Bedkes filed their notice of appeal from the district court‘s 

October 30th order. This Court assigned this second appeal Docket No. 35943. On December 

15, 2008, the district court issued an order denying the Bedkes‘ motion to reconsider its October 

30th order and their motion to strike the City‘s second motion and verified memorandum for 

attorney fees. 

 On January 5, 2009, the Bedkes‘ two appeals were consolidated into the instant appeal 

under Docket No. 35217. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court may appoint a special master in any general adjudication 

and shall specify the special master‘s powers and duties in the order of reference. 

I.C. § 42-1422. Subcases referred to a special master are governed by the [Idaho 

Rules of Civil Procedure (I.R.C.P.)] and the Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.).

I.C. § 42-1411(5); see S.R.B.A. AO1 9(b), (11)(d); see also In re SRBA Case, No. 

39576, 128 Idaho 246, 258, 912 P.2d 614, 625 (1995).

State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc., 130 Idaho 736, 740, 947 P.2d 409, 413 (1997). 

The procedures in AO1 ―supplement the I.R.C.P., I.R.E., I.A.R. and any other applicable laws or 

orders of this court only to the extent necessary to allow for the fair and expeditious resolution of 

all claims or issues in the SRBA.‖ AO1 1(b). 

The special master‘s findings which the court adopts are considered to be 

the findings of the court. I.R.C.P. 52(a); Higley v. Woodard, 124 Idaho 531, 534, 

861 P.2d 101, 104 (Ct. App. 1993); Seccombe v. Weeks, 115 Idaho 433, 434

[435], 767 P.2d 276, 278 (Ct. App. 1989). The special master‘s conclusions of 

law are not binding upon the district court, although they are expected to be 

persuasive. Rodriguez v. Oakley Valley Stone, Inc., 120 Idaho 370, 378, 816 P.2d 

326, 334 (1991). To the degree that the district court adopts the special master‘s 

conclusions of law, they are also the conclusions of the court. Higley, 124 Idaho 

at 534, 861 P.2d at 104.

Hagerman, 130 Idaho at 740, 947 P.2d at 413. 
- 5 -

―This Court employs the same standard of review as the district court when ruling on a 

motion for summary judgment.‖ City of Pocatello v. State, 145 Idaho 497, 500, 180 P.3d 1048, 

1051 (2008) (citation omitted). ―Summary judgment is proper when  ̳the pleadings, depositions, 

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as 

to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.‘ Idaho 

R. Civ. P. 56(c).‖ Id. ―If there is no genuine issue of material fact,  ̳only a question of law 

remains, over which this Court exercises free review.‘‖ Id. (quoting Watson v. Weick, 141 Idaho 

500, 504, 112 P.3d 788, 792 (2005)). 

The question of compliance with the rules of procedure and evidence is 

one of law. See Harney v. Weatherby, 116 Idaho 904, 906-07, 781 P.2d 241, 243-

44 (Ct. App. 1989). This Court freely reviews conclusions of law. Kootenai 

Elec. Co-op. Inc. v. Washington Water Power Co., 127 Idaho 432, 434, 901 P.2d 

1333, 1335 (1995).

Hagerman, 130 Idaho at 740, 947 P.2d at 413.

―[T]he district court‘s determination whether an action was brought, pursued or defended 

frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation will not be disturbed absent an abuse of 

discretion.‖ Puckett v. Verska, 144 Idaho 161, 170, 158 P.3d 937, 946 (2007) (citation omitted). 

The test for whether a trial court abuses its discretion is

(1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) 

whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and 

consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to 

it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000

(1991) (citing State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 600, 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989)).

III. ANALYSIS

The Bedkes argue that the district court erred by not granting their motion to deem their 

challenge as timely filed, by adopting the special master‘s recommendation that their claimed 

water rights be disallowed, and by denying their motion to reconsider their challenge. They also 

assert that the special master lacked authority to recommend an award of attorney fees and that 

the district court erred in holding that the City‘s motions for attorney fees were timely.1 Finally, 

 

1 Although not an issue raised by either of the parties, we must initially consider whether the Bedkes‘ appeal 

from the judgment awarding the City attorney fees has been mooted as a result of their satisfaction of the judgment. 

This is because mootness is a jurisdictional issue that this Court is required to raise sua sponte. In re Doe I, 145 

Idaho 337, 340, 179 P.3d 300, 303 (2008) (citing Webb v. Webb, 143 Idaho 521, 524, 148 P.3d 1267, 1270 (2006)). 

We conclude that this issue is not moot because the Bedkes were compelled to pay the award in order to avoid a 
- 6 -

the Bedkes claim that the district court erred in finding their claims to be frivolous. The City 

asks for attorney fees on appeal.

A. The district court did not err in denying the Bedkes’ motion to deem their challenge 

timely filed or in granting the City’s motion to strike their challenge.

The Bedkes filed their challenge to the special master‘s denial of their motion to alter or 

amend his recommendation to disallow their claimed water rights with the district court twentyeight days after the special master issued that decision. Mindful of the deadline for filing such a 

challenge, as set out in AO1 13(c), the Bedkes simultaneously moved the district court to deem 

their challenge as having been timely filed. Administrative Order 1 13(c) states in relevant part

that

[a]ny party who first filed or participated in a Motion to Alter or Amend 

before the Special Master may file a Notice of Challenge to the decision on a 

Motion to Alter or Amend. A Notice of Challenge shall be filed within 14 days 

following the date of the filing of the decision on a Motion to Alter or Amend.

The Bedkes brought their motion to deem their challenge as timely filed pursuant to I.R.C.P. 

55(c), which states that

[f]or good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default and, if a 

judgment by default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance 

with Rule 60(b).

The Bedkes allege that their untimely filing of their notice of challenge was due to their 

initial reliance upon an entry on the special master‘s calendar that listed the deadline for filing 

objections to the master‘s report and recommendation in this case as February 28, 2008. The 

special master had combined his order denying the Bedkes‘ motion to alter or amend with his 

recommendation pertaining to attorney fees and, as the Bedkes realized too late, the February 28 

deadline was for objections to the master‘s recommendation regarding attorney fees, not for 

challenges to his denial of the Bedkes‘ motion to alter or amend. Challenges to the denial of a 

motion to alter or amend, as stated above, are governed by AO1 13(c), which would have 

required the Bedkes‘ to file their challenge by February 14. The Bedkes urge that the confusion 

they suffered due to the combined recommendation and order, coupled with the February 28 

calendar entry, excuses their untimely filing of their notice of challenge and that pursuant to 

I.R.C.P. 55(c) the court should have heard their challenge. The City moved to strike the Bedkes‘ 

 

sheriff‘s sale. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Lawhorn, 106 Idaho 194, 196-97, 677 P.2d 507, 509-10 (Ct. App. 1984)

(holding that because Lawhorn only satisfied the judgment below in order to avoid a sheriff‘s sale, his satisfaction 

was involuntary and thus his appeal was not moot).
- 7 -

challenge as untimely and further contends that I.R.C.P. 55(c) does not apply in this case as the

district court never entered a default judgment against the Bedkes. 

The City is correct that I.R.C.P. 55(c) did not govern the Bedkes‘ motion, as the district 

court did not enter default judgment against the Bedkes. The period of time provided by AO1 

13(c) to challenge a special master‘s decision regarding a motion to alter or amend is consistent 

with the general provision of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure regarding objections to reports 

from special masters. See I.R.C.P. 53(e)(2) (―Within fourteen (14) days after being served with 

notice of the filing of the report any party may serve written objections thereto upon the other 

parties.‖) AO1 (a) recognizes that ―[t]he litigation of the SRBA will be governed by the Idaho 

Rules of Civil Procedure (I.R.C.P.), Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.) and the Idaho Appellate 

Rules (I.A.R.)‖. Accordingly, the motion to deem the challenge timely filed was governed by 

I.R.C.P. 6(b).2 Consistent with the express terms of I.R.C.P. 6(b), this Court reviews a trial 

court‘s decision whether to grant a motion for enlargement for abuse of discretion. Wheeler v. 

McIntyre, 100 Idaho 286, 289, 596 P.2d 798, 801 (1979). 

We are unable to conclude that the district court abused its discretion by denying the 

Bedkes‘ motion to deem their challenge as timely filed. The district court noted that the special 

master‘s order denying the Bedkes‘ motion to alter or amend and recommending attorney fees 

―clearly and unequivocally separates the order on the motion to alter or amend from the special 

master‘s recommendation on costs and fees.‖ The district court continued, stating:

The entry in the Court‘s register of actions and on the docket also clearly 

separates the order on the motion to alter or amend and the special master‘s 

recommendation on costs and fees into separate entries. Exhibit A to Bedkes‘ 

motion, an excerpt from the Court‘s online calendar for Special Master Dolan, 

only addresses the deadline for filing the objection to the special master‘s 

recommendation. The deadline for filing a challenge would not appear on Special 

Master Dolan‘s calendar because challenges are filed with the presiding judge not 

the special master. The special master‘s calendar also is not the official notice for 

the Court. Had Bedkes checked the docket sheet or the register of actions for the 

case they would have seen entries for both the order denying the motion to alter or 

amend and the special master‘s recommendation with objection deadline.

 

2 Rule 6(b), I.R.C.P. provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

When by these rules . . . an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified 

time, . . . the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion . . . upon motion made after 

the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the 

result of excusable neglect; but the time may not be extended for taking any action under rules 

50(b), 52(b), 59(b), (d), (e), and 60(b) except to the extent and under the conditions stated in them.
- 8 -

More importantly, the district court noted that the Bedkes need not have consulted the register of 

actions or the court‘s docket sheet, since they were parties to the subcase and had actual notice of 

the special master‘s actions, which were clearly delineated. The district court concluded that 

―the Bedkes are not new to the SRBA process and have previously filed a challenge to the 

Presiding Judge. The Court does not find the Bedkes‘ alleged confusion to be reasonable under 

the circumstances.‖ 

The Bedkes do not contend that these factual findings by the court are in any way 

erroneous. The district court‘s decision articulates the reasons that it found that the Bedkes‘ 

claimed confusion did not constitute cause for enlarging the time provided by AO1 13(c). We 

conclude that the Bedkes have failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion. 

See Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc., 119 Idaho at 94, 803 P.2d at 1000. We therefore affirm 

the district court‘s order denying the Bedkes‘ motion to deem their notice of challenge timely 

filed and granting the City‘s motion to strike their challenge.

B. The district court did not err in adopting the special master’s summary judgment 

recommendation that the Bedkes’ claimed water rights be disallowed.

The district court considered the special master‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law 

and wholly adopted them. Since there are no disputed facts, we freely review the district court‘s

adopted conclusions of law.

3

 

The Bedkes claim they obtained their water rights under the constitutional method.4 

―Under . . . the  ̳constitutional method of appropriation,‘ a water user could make a valid 

appropriation without a permit, most commonly by diverting the water and putting it to 

beneficial use.‖ State v. U.S., 134 Idaho 106, 111, 996 P.2d 806, 811 (2000). The Bedkes claim 

that their water rights are derived from the same springs from which the City derives its rights. 

They claim that they constitutionally appropriate water from the springs, that their water

comingles with the City‘s water in the City‘s pipeline, and that the Bedkes successfully reclaim 

the water when it comes out of the end of the City‘s pipe. 

 

3 The Bedkes claim that the special master considered several arguments on summary judgment that were not 

initially raised by the City in their pleadings and/or the stipulated facts that the parties submitted to the special 

master. These objections, however, were not presented to the district court since, as discussed in Part.III.A, supra, 

the Bedkes failed to raise them to the district court in a timely fashion. This Court will not consider issues raised for 

the first time on appeal. Michalk v. Michalk, 148 Idaho 224, 232, 220 P.3d 580, 588 (2009). 

4

In subcase number 45-13792 the Bedkes claimed a .23 cfs water right with a priority date of January 1, 

1955. In subcase number 45-13793 the Bedkes claimed a .23 cfs water right with a priority date of April 1, 1964. 
- 9 -

The Bedkes urge that the district court erred in adopting the special master‘s finding that 

the holding from SRBA presiding judge John M. Melanson‘s August 3, 2005 Memorandum 

Decision and Order on Challenge in subcase 55-10135 (later affirmed in pertinent part by this 

Court in Joyce Livestock Co. v. U.S., 144 Idaho 1, 8, 156 P.3d 502, 509 (2007)), is inapplicable 

to this case. That holding states that no physical diversion is required in order to acquire a water 

right for instream stock watering use. The special master pointed out that the Bedkes have not 

claimed instream stock watering rights and instead have claimed rights derived from ―water 

sources distant from where the water is consumed by their livestock.‖ More importantly the 

special master stated

the Bedkes did not divert the water from its sources. Remember, the Bedkes did 

not claim the City‘s pipeline as the source—they claimed ―spring‖ as the source 

for each claim. The City diverted the water and the Bedkes are merely ―piggy 

backing‖ their claim on another‘s diversion works. The inevitable conclusion is 

that the Bedkes cannot lawfully appropriate the water from the springs by 

claiming the City‘s diversion works as their point of diversion and the City‘s 

pipeline as their point of rediversion. While the Bedkes may have had the 

requisite intent to apply the water to a beneficial use, they failed to prove they 

diverted water from [the Springs]. The City diverted the water flowing in its 

pipeline for a public use and the Bedkes are no more than ―customers‖ of the City 

when they draw water from the pipeline to water their livestock. 

 

The Bedkes continue to argue, however, that based on Joyce Livestock, a diversion is not 

necessary to establish a water right. What this argument obtusely refuses to acknowledge, 

however, is that in cases of instream stock watering, we have recognized a narrow exception to 

the diversion requirement because there is no need for a physical diversion when cattle owners 

deliver the water to their stock directly ―by watering [them] in the springs, creeks, and rivers.‖ 

Joyce, 144 Idaho at 8, 156 P.3d at 509. In other words, Joyce does not stand for the broad 

proposition that a physical diversion is not necessary to obtain a water right under the 

constitutional method; rather, the exception for instream stock watering is based on the commonsense acknowledgement that in such cases there is no rational basis for requiring a physical 

diversion. When cattle are standing in a stream, they divert the water themselves by simply

bending down and drinking it. See R. T. Nahas Co. v. Hulet, 106 Idaho 37, 44, 674 P.2d 1036, 

1043 (Ct. App. 1983) (―We think it unlikely that a rancher would divert water from a stream 

running through his property for livestock watering when the same result is achieved without 

effort simply by allowing livestock to drink directly from the stream.‖) 
- 10 -

The Bedkes further argue that, although they believe that no diversion was required in 

order for them to obtain a water right, ―it is possible for them to have obtained some sort of 

conveyance right in the City‘s pipeline to transport water they allegedly appropriated from the 

springs to their sources of use.‖ They argue that they obtained such a right through prescription.

In order to establish an easement by prescription, a claimant must prove 

by clear and convincing evidence use of the subject property that is (1) open and 

notorious, (2) continuous and uninterrupted, (3) adverse and under a claim of 

right, (4) with the actual or imputed knowledge of the owner of the servient 

tenement (5) for the statutory period of five years. A prescriptive right cannot be 

granted if the use of the servient tenement was by permission of its owner, 

because the use, by definition, was not adverse to the rights of the owner. Indeed, 

the rule is well established that no use can be considered adverse or ripen into a 

prescriptive right unless it constitutes an actual invasion of or infringement on the 

rights of the owner.

Hughes v. Fisher, 142 Idaho 474, 480, 129 P.3d 1223, 1229 (2006) (citations omitted). 

The special master noted that 

Idaho has followed the general rule that property held by a municipality in trust 

for public use cannot be acquired by adverse possession or prescription. In 

Hellerud v. Hauck, 52 Idaho 226, 13 P.2d 1099 (1932), the Idaho Supreme Court 

held that in the absence of a statute making the state subject to the statute of 

limitations, no title by adverse possession can be acquired against the state no 

matter how long the adverse occupancy. There are no cases suggesting the same 

reasoning does not apply to municipalities and the Bedkes have not pointed to any 

statute exempting the state or municipalities from the general rule. 

The Bedkes respond on appeal by citing to Owen v. City of Independence Mo., 445 U.S. 

622, 638 (1980), for the proposition that municipalities are treated as natural persons for all 

purposes of constitutional and statutory analysis. Although the Bedkes have managed to extract 

one sentence from Owen that tends to support their position, that decision is simply inapplicable. 

In Owen, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed ―the question whether local governments, although 

not entitled to an absolute immunity, should be afforded some form of official immunity‖ in 

litigation brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 445 U.S. at 624. In Owen, the U.S. Supreme Court 

explicitly identified the question as one of federal law: ―By including municipalities within the 

class of  ̳persons‘ subject to liability for violations of the Federal Constitution and laws, 

Congress – the supreme sovereign on matters of federal law – abolished whatever vestige of the 

State‘s sovereign immunity the municipality possessed.‖ 445 U.S. at 647-48. In contrast, the 

Bedkes‘ claims of rights by prescription arise under Idaho law. This Court definitively settled 

the question of whether an interest in public property may be acquired against a municipality by 
- 11 -

prescription in Tyrolean Associates v. City of Ketchum, when we held that ―no right to use public 

property for private purposes can be acquired by prescription or acquiescence against a 

municipality.‖ 100 Idaho 703, 704, 604 P.2d 717, 718 (1979) (citations omitted).

The special master further concluded that the Bedkes could not obtain a conveyance right

in the City‘s pipeline through prescription because ―[the Bedkes‘] use of [the water and the 

City‘s pipeline] was by permission of the owner and therefore, the Bedkes‘ claim of prescriptive 

easement must fail.‖ (Citing Christle v. Scott, 110 Idaho 829, 830, 718 P.2d 1267, 1268 (Ct. 

App. 1986); Hughes, 142 Idaho at 480, 129 P.3d at 1229). The special master noted that

[t]he record indicates that Mr. Bedke received the benefit of the City‘s water and 

paid the appropriate fees over the years and continues to do so under [claimed 

water right] 45-13792, but not [claimed water right] 45-13793. What is 

significant is that Mr. Bedke only stopped paying for water under 45-13793 in 

1991, after the City capped the pipeline below Mr. Bedke‘s tie-in. That implies 

that he recognized his status as a customer under both claims until 1991 . . . . In 

other words, Mr. Bedke claimed to be receiving ―his‖ water while at the same 

time acknowledging he received the water with permission of the City and paid its 

fees.

While the Bedkes may now argue they used the City‘s water continuously 

since 1955 and 1964, they cannot reasonably argue that their use of the water or 

the City‘s pipeline was open and adverse. Their use of both was by permission of 

the owner and therefore, the claim of prescriptive easement must fail.

The Bedkes make no answer to this point on appeal.

Because the Bedkes have failed to persuasively argue that no diversion is necessary to 

obtain a constitutional water right in cases such as theirs, and because they have failed to show 

that they have gained a conveyance right in the City‘s pipeline, we conclude that the district 

court did not err when it adopted the special master‘s conclusion of law that the Bedkes‘ claimed 

water rights should be disallowed. 

C. The district court did not err in denying the Bedkes’ motion to reconsider its denial of 

their motion to deem their challenge timely filed, its grant of the City’s motion to strike, 

and its order disallowing the Bedkes’ claimed water rights.

After the district court denied the Bedkes‘ motion to deem their challenge as timely filed, 

granted the City‘s motion to strike, and ordered the Bedkes‘ water rights disallowed, the Bedkes 

moved the court to reconsider its decision. The district court denied their motion.

―The Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a petition to reconsider a 

memorandum decision. As such, [a] district court correctly treat[s an] appellant‘s petition [to 

reconsider] as a motion to alter or amend [a] judgment pursuant to I.R.C.P. 59(e).‖ Obray v. 
- 12 -

Mitchell, 98 Idaho 533, 538, 567 P.2d 1284, 1289 (1977). ―Th[is] Court reviews an order 

denying a motion to alter or amend [a] judgment for abuse of discretion. Pursuant to I.R.C.P. 

59(e), a district court can correct legal and factual errors occurring in proceedings before it.‖ 

Straub v. Smith, 145 Idaho 65, 71, 175 P.3d 754, 760 (2007) (citation omitted).

The thrust of the Bedkes‘ motion to reconsider was that the district court erred in denying 

the motion to deem their challenge timely filed and in considering that challenge because, as pro 

se litigants, the Bedkes, while having made some mistakes in their numerous appearances before 

the SRBA, are yet gathering experience and have never made the same mistake twice. As the 

district court correctly pointed out, however, ―[p]ro se litigants are not accorded any special 

consideration simply because they are representing themselves and are not excused from 

adhering to procedural rules. Sammis v. Magnetek, Inc., 130 Idaho 342, 346, 941 P.2d 314, 318 

(1997).‖ Nelson v. Nelson, 144 Idaho 710, 718, 170 P.3d 375, 383 (2007). Recognizing that the 

decision whether to grant the motion for reconsideration was within its discretion, the district 

court reasonably applied the applicable law and denied the motion. This was not an abuse of 

discretion. See Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc., 119 Idaho at 94, 803 P.2d at 1000. Therefore, 

we affirm the district court‘s denial of the Bedkes‘ motion for reconsideration. 

D. The district court did not err in holding that the special master had authority to 

entertain the City’s motion for attorney fees and costs.

On January 30, 2008, in denying the Bedkes‘ motion to alter or amend his 

recommendation that their water claims be disallowed, the special master also recommended that 

the district court grant the City‘s motion for attorney fees and costs. The Bedkes argue that the 

special master lacked authority to make this recommendation. We disagree. 

Administrative Order 1 9(a) states that ―[t]he Presiding Judge may refer matters, 

including subcases, to a Special Master by an Order of Reference pursuant to I.R.C.P. 53.‖ In 

turn, I.R.C.P. 53(c) states in relevant part that ―[s]ubject to the specifications and limitations 

stated in the order, the master has and shall exercise the power to regulate all proceedings in 

every hearing and to do all acts and take all measures necessary or proper for the efficient 

performance of duties under the order.‖ The Bedkes can point to no specification or limitation in 

the presiding judge‘s order of reference to the special master in this case that would preclude him 

from making a recommendation on attorney fees. Indeed, the Bedkes note in their briefing that 

the order of reference to the special master states in pertinent part that the special master shall 

have the authority to ―schedule and hear dispositive and nondispositive motions of any party.‖ 
- 13 -

Amended Order of Reference Appointing Terry A. Dolan Special Master for Irrigation and Other 

Claims in Reporting Area 10, Basin 45, May, 2001.

The Bedkes point out that under Idaho law, attorney fees can only be awarded to a 

prevailing party and that a prevailing party in cases such as this one cannot be definitively 

determined by the special master, but rather may only be determined after the presiding judge 

issues an order either partially decreeing the claimed water rights or disallowing them. Making a 

recommendation on attorney fees and costs in accordance with its recommendation on the merits, 

however, is a measure ―necessary and proper for the efficient performance of [the special 

master‘s] duties‖ under the order of reference. We therefore conclude that the special master had 

authority to make a recommendation on attorney fees and costs. In any event, the master‘s 

recommendation was simply that – a recommendation. We thus turn to the more pertinent 

inquiry, that is, whether the district court erred in awarding the city attorney fees and costs. 

E. The district court did not err in granting the City attorney fees and costs.

1. Timeliness of the City’s memoranda for attorney fees and costs. 

The City filed its initial motion for attorney fees and costs with the special master on 

December 20, 2006, just one week after the special master issued his recommendation on 

summary judgment that the Bedkes‘ claims be disallowed. The Bedkes contend that this request 

by the City was premature and thus invalid, since the district court had yet to definitively 

determine the prevailing party. 

Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(5) governs the timing for a request for attorney fees:

At any time after the verdict of a jury or a decision of the court, any party 

who claims costs may file and serve on adverse parties a memorandum of costs, 

itemizing each claimed expense, but such memorandum of costs may not be filed 

later than fourteen (14) days after entry of judgment. Such memorandum must 

state that to the best of the party‘s knowledge and belief the items are correct and 

that the costs claimed are in compliance with this rule. Failure to file such 

memorandum of costs within the period prescribed by this rule shall be a waiver 

of the right of costs. A memorandum of costs prematurely filed shall be 

considered as timely.

The district court agreed with the Bedkes that the City‘s December 20 request with the special 

master for attorney fees and costs was premature, as the district court had not yet entered the 

final judgment (partial decree or final order disallowing claims). The court relied on Crowley v. 

Lafayette Life Ins. Co., 106 Idaho 818, 823, 683 P.2d 854, 859 (1984), however, which holds that 

a premature filing of a memorandum of attorney fees and costs does not constitute grounds for 
- 14 -

striking the memorandum when no prejudice would result to any party from considering it. We 

conclude that the district court properly relied on Crowley in considering the City‘s 

memorandum as valid.

The Bedkes argue that they were prejudiced by the City‘s premature filing, as it caused 

the court to enter the February 28, 2008 deadline on the special master‘s calendar for filing 

objections to the master‘s report and recommendation regarding attorney fees, which the Bedkes 

initially mistook for the deadline for filing their challenge regarding the special master‘s denial 

of their motion to alter or amend his recommendation that their water claims be disallowed. As

discussed in Part.III.A and Part.III.C, supra, however, AO1 13(c) governs the timing of such a 

challenge, even for pro se litigants. The prejudice that the Bedkes identify cannot properly be 

attributed to the timing of the City‘s memorandum; rather any harm to the Bedkes was the 

product of their own misunderstanding as to when a challenge to the special master‘s 

recommendation should have been filed. We are unable to conclude that the City‘s premature 

filing of its memorandum of costs and fees prejudiced the Bedkes.

5

 

The Bedkes also argue that the district court erred in awarding the City attorney fees and 

costs based on its second motion for attorney costs and fees, filed to recover the fees and costs 

the City incurred after its original motion. The Bedkes point out that the district court issued its 

order disallowing the Bedkes‘ claims on March 11, 2008, thus triggering the 14 day deadline 

under I.R.C.P. 54(d)(5), and that the City‘s second motion for attorney fees and costs was not 

properly made until May 2, 2008, well after the 14 day deadline. In its discretion, the district 

court considered the City‘s second motion as a supplement to its original memorandum for fees 

and costs, noting that the Bedkes had a full and fair opportunity to be heard as to the additional 

costs and fees. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in so considering 

the City‘s second memorandum. See Ada County Highway Dist. By and Through Fairbanks v. 

Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 874-75, 673 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (1983) (holding that trial court did 

 

5

The Bedkes raise a concern as to the premature filing of memoranda of costs and fees. They point out that 

if the final sentence of I.R.C.P. 54(d)(5) is given literal effect and premature requests for attorney fees are always 

deemed timely, courts could be faced with a situation wherein a defendant has less time to object to a memorandum 

of costs and fees than to answer the complaint. This situation would arise when the memorandum of costs and fees

is filed contemporaneously with, or shortly after the complaint is filed. In the extremely unlikely event that this 

scenario should ever play out, we are convinced that the trial court would exercise its discretion in such a fashion as 

to arrive at a just result that avoids rewarding such underhanded behavior. Indeed, such behavior would warrant the 

trial court‘s consideration of an award of attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-123. 
- 15 -

not err in allowing amendment of party‘s costs bill to include attorney fees after expiration of 

deadline in I.R.C.P. 54(d)(5) where no harm or prejudice resulted to the other party). 

2. Frivolous, unreasonable, and unfounded nature of the Bedkes’ claims.

After the district court denied the Bedkes‘ challenge to the special master‘s 

recommendation that it award the City attorney fees, the Bedkes filed a motion to reconsider 

with the district court, alleging, among other things, that their claims were not pursued 

frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation. The district court‘s decision on this issue is 

worthy of being repeated:

The water rights claimed by the Bedkes are based on water historically 

diverted by the City and delivered though its system to customers within its 

service area, including Bedkes. Although Bedkes, like any other municipal 

customer, are the ―end users‖ of the water, such a municipal customer does not 

develop an interest in the right. The purpose of use of a municipal right is to 

deliver water to customers within the service area. The City was using its rights 

consistent with that purpose of use. The only factor that changed was that Bedkes 

eventually stopped paying for the water service and the City did not immediately 

suspend their service. Nonetheless, Bedkes were always using the City‘s water 

pursuant to its water right.

Bedkes presented no facts to establish that they diverted the water or 

contracted with the City to use its delivery system only. Further, Bedkes cite no 

legal theory or authority to establish a right by operation of law, such as 

prescriptive easement. Under Bedkes‘ argument, every municipal water user who 

historically used municipal water prior to the mandatory permit requirements 

could claim a beneficial use claim junior to the municipality delivering the water. 

This argument ignores the purpose of municipal rights and ultimately puts the 

City in the position of having to defend against frivolous claims.

The Bedkes have provided no meaningful rebuttal to this analysis apart from the bald assertion 

that their claims have not been frivolous. Thus, they have failed to demonstrate that the district 

court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121. We conclude 

that the district court did not err by considering the City‘s memoranda for fees and costs as 

timely and that it did not abuse its discretion in finding the Bedkes‘ claims to be frivolous in

awarding the City attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121. 

F. We award the City attorney fees and costs on appeal.

The City has requested an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-121. 

Attorney fees can be awarded on appeal under that statute only if the appeal was brought or 

defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. Gustaves v. Gustaves, 138 Idaho 64,

71, 57 P.3d 775, 782 (2002). This entire case is based upon the Bedkes attempt to create water 
- 16 -

rights for themselves out of their use of the City‘s municipal water system, use they had been 

paying for up until 1991. The Bedkes failed to successfully make their case in the proceedings 

below and have failed on appeal to show any error in those proceedings. In short, the Bedkes‘ 

pursuit of their claims has been frivolous at every stage of these proceedings, and we therefore 

award the City attorney fees on appeal. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The district court did not err in denying the Bedkes‘ motion to deem their challenge as 

timely filed, in adopting the special master‘s recommendation that their claims be disallowed, or 

in denying their motion to reconsider. The special master had authority to recommend an award 

of attorney fees and the district court was correct to consider the City‘s motions for attorney fees 

as timely. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the 

City, as the Bedkes‘ claims were frivolous. Attorney fees and costs on appeal are awarded to the 

City.

Chief Justice EISMANN and Justices BURDICK, J. JONES and W. JONES CONCUR.