Opinion ID: 901498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Taxation of Disbursements

Text: [¶26.] The circuit court awarded Schubauer $905.67 in disbursements pursuant to SDCL 15-17-37, which provides: The prevailing party in a civil action or special proceeding may recover expenditures necessarily incurred in gathering and procuring evidence or bringing the matter to trial. Such expenditures include costs of telephonic hearings, costs of telephoto or fax charges, fees of witnesses, interpreters, translators, officers, printers, service of process, filing, expenses from telephone calls, copying, costs of original and copies of transcripts and reporter's attendance fees, court appointed experts, and other similar expenses and charges. These expenditures are termed disbursements and are taxed pursuant to § 15-6-54(d). Because we have concluded that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Schubauer, we vacate the circuit court's taxation of disbursements in favor of Schubauer. However, we specifically address whether legal research fees can be awarded under SDCL 15-17-37. [¶27.] We have held that only those expenses specifically authorized by statute may be taxed as disbursements, and although the trial court has some discretion, it must use cautious restraint within the statutory specifications. Behrens v. Wedmore, 2005 SD 79, ¶69, 698 NW2d 555, 581 (quoting Lewis v. Asleen, 2001 SD 131, ¶10, 635 NW2d 744, 747). Schubauer does not argue that computerized legal research fees are expressly authorized by the statute. Instead, he argues that computerized legal research fees fall under other similar expenses and charges. SDCL 15-17-37. [¶28.] In City of Aberdeen v. Rich, 2003 SD 26, ¶27, 658 NW2d 775, 782, we noted that this Court has been extremely hesitant to allow disbursements for [the] other similar expenses and charges provision of SDCL 15-17-37. In this case, we follow the strict construction of SDCL 15-17-37. The depth and detail of legal research is dictated by the complexity of the case and the judgment of the individual attorney. More importantly, the expense for non-computerized legal research is not taxable and is not within other similar expenses and charges. We hold that computerized legal research fees cannot be taxed as disbursements under SDCL 15-17-37. [¶29.] Reversed and remanded. [¶30.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, ZINTER, and MEIERHENRY, Justices, concur.