Opinion ID: 874085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Costs and attorney fees at the district court.

Text: The Belstlers argue that the district court abused its discretion by failing to identify the prevailing party and explaining its decision when it awarded costs to the Conines and no attorney fees to the Belstlers. They argue that the Conines did not prevail in the overall action because they only prevailed on the issue of a prescriptive easement at the proceedings below. The district court's December 30, 2009 Memorandum Decision stated that considering all claims and defenses presented that the Conines are entitled to their costs but not attorney fees as this action was not frivolously or unreasonably pursued nor defended by the Belstlers. Following the April 21, 2010 Memorandum Decision on reconsideration, the final judgment ordered that the Conines were awarded their costs incurred in the defense of this action, but are denied an award of attorney's fees, and that the Belstlers shall pay their own fees and costs. Rule 54(d)(1)(B) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure states that [i]n determining which party to an action is a prevailing party and entitled to costs, the trial court shall in its sound discretion consider the final judgment or result of the action in relation to the relief sought by the respective parties. The determination of the prevailing party by the district court is reviewed by this Court on appeal under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Bybee v. Isaac, 145 Idaho 251, 260, 178 P.3d 616, 625 (2008); see also Sun Valley Shopping Ctr. v. Idaho Power, 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991) (abuse of discretion inquiry). Part of that discretion is the court's ability to decline an award to either side even if both parties are partially successful. Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893, 903, 104 P.3d 367, 377 (2004). The district court is not required to make a claim-by-claim analysis, but is to take an overall view of the case. Crump v. Bromley, 148 Idaho 172, 174, 219 P.3d 1188, 1190 (2009). Here, the district court took into consideration all claims and defenses, and within its discretion, awarded costs to the Conines but not attorney fees. Attorney fees were generically sought by both parties in the pleadings, and only the Belstlers in their answer to the counterclaims cited to statutory provisions, I.C. §§ 12-120 [3] and -121. Attorney fees sought under Section 12-121 are allowed under the discretion of the court by Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54(e)(1) when the court finds the case was brought or defended in manner that was considered frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1); Thomas v. Madsen, 142 Idaho 635, 639, 132 P.3d 392, 396 (2006). The district court here found that this matter was not frivolously pursued or defended and denied attorney fees to both parties. Neither of these decisions were an abuse of its discretion. The trial court's conclusion that costs were awarded to the Conines was reasonable considering the Belstlers sought to prevent the Conines from using both of the disputed roads; the district court did not state that the Conines were the prevailing party but it is clear from its decision that it considered the Conines as ultimately prevailing. As both parties presented legal theories that were ultimately successful before the district court, it was not an abuse of the court's discretion to find that the matter was not frivolously pursued or defended when it denied attorney fees. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding costs to the Conines and denying attorney fees to both parties.