Opinion ID: 874260
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The district court erred in awarding J-U-B $35,600 in attorney fees on the contract claim; thus the decision ordering the auditor to pay J-U-B $41,140 from BECO's cash bond must be vacated and the case remanded.

Text: BECO argues that the district court abused its discretion in awarding J-U-B fees in an amount greater than the total amount of fees accrued defending against all three of BECO's claims through August 15, 2005, the date upon which BECO withdrew its breach of contract claim. We agree. In our previous decision, we unambiguously held that J-U-B was not entitled to recover attorney fees incurred after the contract claim was dismissed. 145 Idaho at 726, 184 P.3d at 851. J-U-B incurred a total of $33,661.92 in attorney fees defending the action through the date of the dismissal of the contract claim. Nevertheless, the district court awarded J-U-B $35,600a sum greater than the total amount of attorney fees incurredto J-U-B for the defense of that single claim. When awarding attorney's fees, a district court must consider the applicable factors set forth in I.R.C.P. 54(e)(3) and may consider any other factor that the court deems appropriate. Hines v. Hines, 129 Idaho 847, 855, 934 P.2d 20, 28 (1997). Rule 54(e)(3) does not require the district court to make specific findings in the record, only to consider the stated factors in determining the amount of the fees. When considering the factors, courts need not demonstrate how they employed any of those factors in reaching an award amount. Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893, 902, 104 P.3d 367, 376 (2004). Lettunich, 145 Idaho at 749-50, 185 P.3d at 261-62. The bottom line in an award of attorney fees is reasonableness. Id. at 750, 185 P.3d at 262. What is a reasonable attorneys' fee is a question for the determination of the court, taking into consideration the nature of the litigation, the amount involved in the controversy, the length of time utilized in preparation for and the trial of the case and other related factors viewed in the light of the knowledge and experience of the court as a lawyer and judge; it is not necessary in this connection that he hear any evidence on the matter although it is proper that the court may have before it the opinion of experts. Smith v. Great Basin Grain Co., 98 Idaho 266, 281, 561 P.2d 1299, 1314 (1977) (citations omitted). In awarding J-U-B attorney fees in this case, the district court stated the following: In awarding attorney fees this court is considering the testimony of attorney John Bailey, the complexity of the issues, the experience of counsel for J-U-B and concludes the hourly rate charged by counsel for J-U-B to be reasonable and is [sic] similar to the prevailing rate for experienced counsel. This court further concludes it was necessary for J-U-B's counsel to review voluminous documents in defending their clients. This court further concludes most of the work performed by counsel for J-U-B prior to August 15, 2005, involved defending the breach of contract claim pursued by BECO Construction. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the district court's conclusion that most of the work performed by counsel for J-U-B prior to August 15 involved defending against BECO's contract claim. We need not evaluate that evidence at length, however, as there is nothing in the record that can support the courts decision to award J-U-B $1,938.08 more than the entirety of attorney fees that J-U-B incurred through August 15. As the district court concluded that only most of, rather than all, the work up to that date related to the contract claim, the court's award could not be greater than the total billings to that point. We recognize that J-U-B asked the district court to award interest on any award of attorney fees, but, as counsel for J-U-B acknowledged at oral argument, an award of interest was inappropriate because pre-judgment interest is available only when damages are liquidated or are ascertainable by mere mathematical process. Bouten Const. Co. v. H.F. Magnuson Co., 133 Idaho 756, 762, 992 P.2d 751, 757 (1999). We therefore conclude that the district court abused its discretion by awarding J-U-B more in attorney fees than it incurred through August 15; the court either acted outside the bounds of the applicable legal standards by awarding interest or failed to reach its decision by an exercise of reason. Because the district court erred by awarding J-U-B $35,600 in attorney fees incurred in connection with the original defense of the contract action, we vacate the district court's award of $5,540 to J-U-B for the attorney fees incurred in securing the erroneous award. However, BECO also asserts that the district court erred in awarding any attorney fees incurred in connection with determining the amount of attorney fees to which J-U-B was entitled. For purposes of guidance on remand, we address this contention. BECO relies on a line of authority from the Court of Appeals in support of its claim of error. That court has held that a party may not recover attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120 when the issue on appeal is the amount of attorney fees awarded by the trial court, rather than the entitlement to an award. See Sanders v. Lankford, 134 Idaho 322, 327, 1 P.3d 823, 828 (Ct.App.2000); Daisy Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Paintball Sports, Inc., 134 Idaho 259, 263, 999 P.2d 914, 918 (Ct.App.2000); Bldg. Concepts, Ltd. v. Pickering, 114 Idaho 640, 645, 759 P.2d 931, 936 (Ct.App.1988); Spidell v. Jenkins, 111 Idaho 857, 861, 727 P.2d 1285, 1289 (Ct. App.1986); Cheney v. Smith, 108 Idaho 209, 211, 697 P.2d 1223, 1225 (Ct.App.1985); DeWils Interiors, Inc. v. Dines, 106 Idaho 288, 291-93, 678 P.2d 80, 83-85 (Ct.App. 1984). We decline to follow this line of authority. Rather, we hold today that courts may award reasonable attorney fees incurred in connection with the effort to secure a reasonable amount of attorney fees. This Court previously addressed this issue when considering a prevailing party claiming attorney fees under a contractual provision. In Lettunich, this Court found that the prevailing party was entitled to an award of attorney fees incurred in the continuation of the litigation in order to determine the amount that he is entitled to be awarded in attorney fees. 145 Idaho at 752, 185 P.3d at 264. We stated: Where he had a legal right to recover attorney fees as the prevailing party in the action, litigation over the amount of the attorney fee award is also part of the legal action for which he is entitled to an award of attorney fees. Id. We can discern no principled basis for treating claims for attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120 in a different fashion. Relying on this Courts previous decisions in Rockefeller v. Grabow, 136 Idaho 637, 645, 39 P.3d 577, 585 (2001), Weaver v. Searle Bros., 129 Idaho 497, 502, 927 P.2d 887, 892 (1996), and Brooks v. Gigray Ranches, Inc., 128 Idaho 72, 77-79, 910 P.2d 744, 749-51 (1996), BECO also asserts that the memorandum of costs and fees submitted by J-U-B is inadequate to permit the district court to meaningfully apportion the attorney fees incurred in the defense of the contract action from the remaining claims. The difficulties with this argument are two-fold. First, while the original memorandum of costs and fees incurred by J-U-B does not categorize the fees specifically according to claim, many of the entries are clearly for work performed defending the contract claimfor example, those entries describing fees incurred in obtain[ing] and review[ing] initial contract. Thus, unlike the district courts in the above cited cases, the district court in this case may find, in its discretion, that J-U-B's memorandum does in fact provide it with enough detail to properly apportion the fees among the different claims. Second, on remand, the district court has discretion to permit amendment of the memorandum of costs. See Ada County Highway Dist. v. Acarrequi, 105 Idaho 873, 874-75, 673 P.2d 1067, 1068-69 (1983); Medrano v. Neibaur, 136 Idaho 767, 770, 40 P.3d 125, 128 (2002) (Eismann, J., dissenting). For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the district courts order requiring the auditor to pay J-U-B $41,140 and remand the case to the district court for a proper determination of the amount of attorney fees due to J-U-B for the defense of the contract claim. On remand, the district court shall direct J-U-B to return the $41,140 to the court and the court shall, in turn, release that sum to BECO. [1]