Opinion ID: 2521676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Special-master fees

Text: Foster and Cochrane also argue that, because the parties had reached a cost-sharing agreement as to how the special-master fees would be split, the district court abused its discretion by ordering the defendants jointly and severally liable for special-master fees. Because the appointment of a special master is within the district court's discretion, and because a special master is entitled to a reasonable remuneration for his or her services, this court will review the district court's award of special-master fees for abuse of discretion. See State v. District Court, 143 Idaho 695, 152 P.3d 566, 570 (2007); 9C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2608 (3d ed.2008). In this case, the district court held a hearing concerning the appointment of a special master. During the hearing, the parties and the court discussed how the special-master fees would be allocated. Foster and Cochrane argue that the parties agreed to split the fees 50/50. However, after the parties agreed to split the fees 50/50, the district court clearly communicated that the special-master fees would be recoverable at the end of the case by the prevailing party. Neither party objected to the court's conclusion that special-master fees were recoverable by the prevailing party. Thus, we conclude that when the district court entered default against Dornan, Foster, and Cochrane, it essentially determined that Dingwall, Yang, and Chai were the prevailing parties. Therefore, it was within the court's discretion to order Dornan, Foster, and Cochrane to pay the special-master fees.