Opinion ID: 1401421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The district judge abused his discretion in awarding discretionary costs to Montane.

Text: The determination of costs is left to the discretion of the district court. Idaho Dep't of Health v. Southfork Lumber Co., 123 Idaho 146, 149, 845 P.2d 564, 567 (1993). The burden is on the party opposing the award to demonstrate an abuse of the district court's discretion, and absent an abuse of discretion, the district court's award of costs will be upheld. Zimmerman v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 128 Idaho 851, 857, 920 P.2d 67, 73 (1996).
The Binghams assert that the district judge erred in awarding discretionary costs of $91.96 to Montane because (1) there was no showing that the costs were necessary and exceptional; and (2) upon objection to the costs, the district judge did not make express findings as to why the costs were allowed pursuant to I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(D). The district judge found that [t]he discretionary costs of $91.96 under the circumstances of this case, including the out of state residence of defendant, appear to be ordinary and necessary. The district judge improperly awarded discretionary costs in this case because the judge merely determined that the costs appear[ed] to be ordinary and necessary. This is not sufficient; rather, the district judge must make express findings that the costs are exceptional, necessary, reasonably incurred, and should in the interest of justice be assessed against the adverse party. I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(D); see also Fuller v. Wolters, 119 Idaho 415, 425, 807 P.2d 633, 643 (1991); Westfall v. Caterpillar, Inc., 120 Idaho 918, 926, 821 P.2d 973, 981 (1991). In addition, upon objection to the discretionary costs claimed by Montane, the district judge did not make express findings as to why such specific item of discretionary cost should or should not be allowed as required by Rule 54(d)(1)(D). The district judge did not determine why each of the specific items of costs for long distance telephone charges, photocopy charges and facsimile transmission charges should be allowed, despite the Binghams' objection to each of the specific charges in its Memorandum to Support a Motion for Disallowance of Claims for Fees and Costs. Therefore, because the district judge did not make the findings required by Rule 54(d)(1)(D) in making an award of discretionary costs, we reverse the award.