Opinion ID: 874401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The magistrate judge should determine and award to Nancy a reasonable family allowance.

Text: Nancy moved the magistrate court several times to grant her a family allowance pursuant to I.C. § 15-2-404. At the September 28, 2005 hearing before the magistrate judge, the attorney for the personal representative suggested that there was a possibility Nancy had already received what she was entitled to under this provision and that Mary was therefore in the process of having an accounting done to make that determination. The attorney told the court the accounting would be done in three to four weeks, and the magistrate judge replied: THE COURT: Could I get you to agree, when they get that accounting, that you have Judge Cockerille determine if there should be a family allowance, instead of ruling on it now? MR. STOPPELLO: Yes. The resulting order stated that Mary believed Nancy had received proceeds in excess of the family allowance and was therefore having an accounting prepared to address the issue. Nancy filed an objection requesting the court set a January 1, 2006 deadline for the accounting to be completed. The court rejected the request. Nancy renewed her request for family allowance at the district court; however, the court made no mention of it. Mary has not completed the accounting and has not paid any family allowance to Nancy. Nancy has requested that this Court vacate the orders entered by the magistrate judge allowing Mary to defer making the accounting and instruct the court to finally determine and pay her family allowance. The Idaho legislature repealed the family allowance provision, I.C. § 15-2-404, in the last legislative session. 2008 S.L. ch. 182, § 4, p. 550. However, new legislation is not given retroactive effect unless expressly so declared. I.C. § 73-101. The legislation repealing I.C. § 15-2-404 does not provide for retroactive effect. Accordingly, we address this claim. The granting of a family allowance pursuant to I.C. § 15-2-404 is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Matter of Bowman's Estate, 101 Idaho 131, 136, 609 P.2d 663, 668 (1980) (holding no abuse of discretion by the trial court either in granting the family allowance or in the amount thereof). Abuse of that discretion is found when the reviewing court is convinced that the award was clearly arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. Id. By declining to set a deadline for the accounting to be completed, the magistrate judge effectively allowed Mary to withhold any allowance Nancy may have been entitled to throughout the course of these proceedings, effectively denying Nancy her statutory entitlement. The magistrate judge, rather than exercising his discretion in the matter, delegated the resolution of the issue. Although Mary's attorney represented that the accounting would be complete sometime around the end of October 2005, Mary has failed to complete the accounting even now  three years later. The magistrate judge's refusal to act was an abuse of discretion, and the district court should have so held. We now remand with instructions to the district court to direct the magistrate judge to determine and award to Nancy such family allowance as she is entitled to, if any.