Opinion ID: 2534320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: The fees were incurred in an action and Mike was the prevailing party.

Text: Ed also contends that certain fees either were not incurred in an action or were for motions on which Mike was not the prevailing party. [5] First, Mike's fees for the dispersal sale, the negotiations for the sale of the property, and for the sale itself, related to issues tried at some point or another to the district court. Hence, they related to the action. Second, in deciding whether a party was the prevailing one the inquiry is not conducted motion-by-motion or argument-by-argument. See Holmes v. Holmes, 125 Idaho at 787, 874 P.2d at 598. Instead, the focus is properly directed at the criteria enumerated in I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B). That is, the 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, whether there were multiple claims, multiple issues, counterclaims, third party claims, cross-claims, or other multiple or cross issues between the parties, and the extent to which each party prevailed upon each of such issue or claims. I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B). A trial court's determination on whether a party prevailed is a matter of discretion. Holmes, 125 Idaho at 787, 874 P.2d at 598. After entertaining Ed's objections to Mike's request for attorney's fees, the district court disallowed fees on one item and characterized the other objected-to items as necessary for Mike to assist the dispersing agent in carrying out his duties. Ed has not persuaded us otherwise. Thus, we conclude the district court acted within the bounds of its discretion in determining the items for which fees were awardable and in making the fee award. 3.