1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42978

LINELL BILLS, an individual ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.
JON LOREN BILLS, an individual ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 661

Filed: August 26, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Lemhi County. Hon. Alan C. Stephens , District Judge.

Judgment of the district court
, remanded for further proceedings

.

Jon Loren Bills
, Concho, Arizona
, pro se appellant.

Wright Law Offices, PLLC ; Steven J. Wright
, Idaho Falls , for respondent.

________________________________________________ GRATTON, Judge Jon Loren Bills (“Loren”) appeals from the judgment of the district court in favor of his
mother, Linell Bills (“Linell”). On appeal, Loren argues that the district court made an error in calculating the amount of the judgment against him. For the reasons set forth below, w e remand for further proceedings

. I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Linell filed suit requesting that the district court perform an accounting/winding up of the business she shared with her son, Loren, and to find that Loren was unjustly enriched. Loren filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and requested an accounting. A jury found that a

contract did exist between Linell and Loren, but that Linell did not breach the contract. The evidence submitted at trial established an accounting of the joint venture’s assets. Accordingly,

t he district court entered a d ecision and o rder finding that a joint v enture existed between Linell

and Loren for the opera tion of a cattle ranch with ancillary farming activities. The district court2

f urther found that the parties agree d to diss olution of the joint venture and
, therefore
, allocated

the assets . Finally, the district court issued a j udgment awarding $97,998.00 against Loren based on the unjust enrichment claim

. Loren timely appeals.

II.

ANALYSIS

The issue on appeal is whether the district court erred by including the depreciation

expense of the farm property in calculating the judgment against him . Linell a sserts that Loren

waived t his issue on appeal because he did not compl y with Idaho Appellate Rule 35(a)(6) , but offers no substantive argument regarding the merits . She also requests an award of att orney fees incurred on appeal. Idaho Appellate Rule 35(a)(6) requires the argument section of an appellant’s brief to “contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented on appeal, the
reasons therefor, with citations to the authoritie s, statutes and parts of the transcript and record relied upon.” Loren’s appellate brief does not expressly cite to page numbers in the record and

contains no citations to authorities. However, Loren’s brief does state the sole issue and reasons

for rais ing the issue

. The brief also reference s a few specific documents contained in the record

. 1

The se documents were sufficiently identified and this Court ha d no difficult y in discerning the argument being presented. Although Loren did not cite to the reco rd by page number, there is a

finite number of relevant pag es

. Loren sufficiently directed this C ourt to the relevant documents

and it was no t necessary to comb the record to locate them. Further, citation to legal authority is unnecessary when the lone claim relates to an internal error in the district court’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law. Because Loren’s brief presents the issue for review and supplies necessary arguments to address the issue, we will consider the issue on appeal

. See Rekow v.
Weekes , 158 Idaho 868, 871, 353 P.3d 1102, 1105 (Ct. App. 2015)

. When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court

conducts a multi

- tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court correctly perceived the

iss ue as one of discretion; acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and reached its decision by an

exercise of reason. Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Powe r Co. , 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991).

1 Copies of the documents are attached to his brief.3

In making its determination relat ed to allocation of the assets, the district court considered the parties ’ tax returns , which included IRS Form 4835 (“ Farm Rental Income and Expenses ”) submitted by Lin ell . The district court stated in its f indings of f

act and c onclusions

of l aw : The tax returns of the parties, which have not been audited, but which were submitted to the IRS, are indicative of the ranch cash income and cash expenses of the parties over the respective years
, except as noted below.

a. Depreciation expenses must be disregarded on each tax return as these expenses are not cash expenses and there was no specific agreement between the parties to include depreciation expenses in the calculation of net profit of the ranch operation. (Emphasis added.)
The district court foun d that : (1) in 2008 Linell received $23,243.45 less in net profit of the joint venture than what she was entitled to receive by agreement of the parties ; ( 2 ) in 2009 Linell received $22,381.68 less than what she was entitled to receive ; and ( 3 ) in 2010 Linell received $28,776 .00 less tha n w hat she was entitled to receive. There appear s to be an internal inconsistency in the calculation of the judg ment against

Loren

. The district court stated in its findings that depreciation expense must be disregarded on
the tax return, but the totals used for 2008 through 2010 in calculat ing the judgment ($23, 243.45

in 2008 , $22,381.68 in 2009
, and $28,776.00 in 2010 ) include the $20,000.00 depreciation

expense listed on line 12 o f the tax form from each respective year. This Court is unable to resolve the inconsistency in the first instance and the district court should be given the opportunity to reconcile the issue. Therefore , w e remand the case to the district court to rectify the inconsistency between the findings and the calculation of the judgment. Finally, Linell seeks attorney fees on appeal citing Idaho Code § 12

- 12 0(3)

. An award of attorney fees may be granted under I .C. § 12

- 121 and I.A.R. 41 to the prevailing party and such an award is appropriate when the court is left with the abiding belief that the appeal has been brought or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. Rendon v. Paskett , 126

Idaho 944, 945, 894 P.2d 775, 776 (Ct. App. 1995). As Linell is not the prevailing party on appeal, she is not entitled to attorney fees.4 III.
CONCLUSION

The re appears to be an inconsistency in the calculation of the judgment against Loren

which needs to be reconciled . Therefore, we r emand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. No a ttorney fees are awarded. Chief Judge MELANSON and Judge HUSKEY CONCUR

.