Opinion ID: 2449953
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The objections to the district court's denial of leave to amend and its award of attorney fees.

Text: The Halvorsons challenge the district court's award of attorney fees and its denial of their motion to amend their complaint. A district court's award of attorney fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Henderson v. Henderson Inv. Props., LLC, 148 Idaho 638, 639-40, 227 P.3d 568, 569-70 (2010). Likewise, [a]n abuse-of-discretion standard is employed in reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint to add an additional cause of action. Weitz v. Green, 148 Idaho 851, 858, 230 P.3d 743, 750 (2010). Because these issues are both reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard, we treat them together. In reviewing a trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, this Court considers: (1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). In awarding attorney fees, the district court recognized its discretion, citing Costa v. Borges, 145 Idaho 353, 359, 179 P.3d 316, 322 (2008). The court then reached its decision by an exercise of reason, applying the factors laid out by this Court in Costa. In particular, the court noted the length and repetition of the Halvorsons' arguments, the fact that many of the arguments they pursued had no basis in fact or law, and the novel and unsupported legal arguments that the Halvorsons put forward after it became clear that there was no dispute regarding the status of the roadway. The district court understood that attorney fees... [are] not a matter of right and considered the factors appropriately within the outer boundaries of its discretion. McGrew v. McGrew, 139 Idaho 551, 562, 82 P.3d 833, 844 (2003). Similarly, the district court recognized its discretion to grant or deny the Halvorsons' leave to amend. I.R.C.P. 15(a) (When more than 20 days have elapsed since the filing, a party may amend a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires). The Halvorsons sought to amend their complaint to add further claims for damages to their fence subsequent to the initiation of this litigation. As there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Halvorsons placed the fence within the fifty-foot width of Camps Canyon Road, the district court did not err by refusing to grant leave to amend the complaint when the Halvorsons were not entitled to relief. Black Canyon Racquetball Club, Inc. v. Idaho First Nat. Bank, N.A., 119 Idaho 171, 178, 804 P.2d 900, 907 (1991). We therefore affirm the district court's decisions in awarding attorney fees and refusing leave to amend the Halvorsons' complaint.