Opinion ID: 1348631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Taxing K.O. Lee's Costs

Text: On notice of review, K.O. Lee argues trial court should have taxed costs in the amount of $964.64 instead of $337.51. Only costs authorized by statute are recoverable. Magbuhat v. Kovarik, 445 N.W.2d 315 (S.D.1989). [2] K.O. Lee's application for taxation of costs was as follows: For all proceedings before hearing $ 10.00 For all proceedings after hearing 5.00 Clerk of courts, filing fee 32.50 Deposition transcript fee (202.51) Hearing transcript fee 205.80 Copying expense (1,860 copies at .15 per copy) 279.00 Long distance telephone expense 14.03 For attending upon and taking the deposition of a witness (SDCL 15-17-2(3)) (5 witnesses at $2.00 each) 10.00 Statutory witness fee for depositions (5 witnesses at $20.00 ($100.00)) plus (10 miles at .26 ($2.60)) 102.60 Statutory witness fee for hearing and mileage (1 witness at $20.00) plus (320 Miles at .26 ($83.20)) 103.20 ________ TOTAL $964.64 Trial court allowed taxation of costs in the following amount: Proceedings before hearing $ 10.00 Proceedings after hearing 5.00 Filing fee 32.50 Statutory witness fee 20.00 Mileage for that witness (320 mi. at .21 67.50 Copying costs (1,860 at .15 per copy) (202.51) _________ TOTAL $337.51  The highlighted amounts reflect an apparent clerical error in trial court's award, as the amount of Deposition transcript fee is $202.51, and the copying costs are $279.00. [3] The costs actually awarded by trial court were appropriate in light of the evidence to support such an award. Trial court allowed $202.51, mistakenly labeled as copying costs, and we affirm trial court's total cost award which incorporated the $202.51 amount. However, this amount should be reflected as a deposition transcript cost, not as an award of copying costs. K.O. Lee submitted evidence to support its application for costs and, upon review, we find statutory authority to affirm trial court's award of costs with the exception of copying costs and long-distance telephone expenses. Kallis v. Beers, 375 N.W.2d 642, 645 (S.D.1985); Arcon Const. Co. v. S.D. Cement Plant, 349 N.W.2d 407, 416 (S.D.1984). Therefore, we find K.O. Lee is entitled to its reasonable costs in the amount of $671.61, and adjust K.O. Lee's award accordingly. In light of our affirmance of trial court's judgment in its entirety on Issues 1 and 2, we decline to address K.O. Lee's notice of review issue asking us to determine whether trial court acted correctly as to issues 1 and 2, regardless of the reasons given, hereby deeming it moot. Trial court's decision is affirmed with directions to adjust K.O. Lee's costs in accordance with this decision. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST, J., concur. HENDERSON and SABERS, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.