Opinion ID: 874364
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applicability of I.R.C.P. 54(d)

Text: In addition, the Holcombs argue that the district court erred in determining that I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1) is not applicable when determining the amount of costs (as a matter of right and discretionary) to award the Zenners. In support of their argument, the Holcombs refer to their prior arguments regarding the applicability of I.R.C.P. 54 in determining the amount of attorney fees to award. Under I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(A), costs shall be allowed as a matter of right to the prevailing party or parties, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)(C) and (D) then distinguishes which costs are mandatory and which are discretionary. Here, the district court determined, [a] fair reading of the plain meaning of the contract persuades me that it contemplated that the prevailing party would walk away from the courthouse at no cost to himself. In other words, the district court found that the contract was not ambiguous and that the prevailing party would walk away with no cost to himself. As such, the district court ordered the Holcombs to pay the Zenners' actual costs. In Farm Credit Bank, we stated that I.C. § 12-120 does not override a valid agreement.... 122 Idaho at 569, 836 P.2d at 515 (citing Chittenden & Eastman Co. v. Leasure, 116 Idaho 981, 982, 783 P.2d 320, 321 (Ct.App.1989)). Likewise, we hold that the general entitlement to costs under I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1) does not override a valid agreement. This standard also promotes the freedom of contract, which is a fundamental concept underlying the law of contracts and is an essential element of the free enterprise system. Steiner Corp. v. American Dist. Telegraph, 106 Idaho 787, 791, 683 P.2d 435, 439 (1984) (citing Rawlings v. Layne & Bowler Pump Co., 93 Idaho 496, 499, 465 P.2d 107, 110 (1970)). Therefore, we affirm the district court in its award of actual costs pursuant to the contract.