Opinion ID: 2629222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Is Warren entitled to attorney fees on appeal?

Text: A party claiming attorney fees must assert the specific statute, rule, or case authority for its claim. MDS Investments, L.L.C. v. State, 138 Idaho 456, 465, 65 P.3d 197, 206 (2003). It is not sufficient to make a generalized request for attorney fees. Crea v. FMC Corp., 135 Idaho 175, 181, 16 P.3d 272, 272 (2000). `[I]t is incumbent on the moving party to assert the grounds upon which it seeks an award of attorney fees.' Id. (quoting Bingham v. Montane Resource Assoc., 133 Idaho 420, 424, 987 P.2d 1035, 1039 (2000)). Warren requests an award of attorney fees on appeal, citing to St. Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr. Inc. v. Krueger, 124 Idaho 501, 511, 861 P.2d 71, 81 (Ct.App.1992) as the basis for such an award. In the Krueger case, one of the grounds for the award of attorney fees on appeal was that a term of the promissory note provided for the payment of all costs, including attorney fees on appeal. Id. The other ground was that the appeal merely has presented an invitation to second-guess the trial court on conflicting evidence and to consider issues which were not raised below. Id. It is the latter reason upon which Warren bases her claim for fees. We hold that this appeal presents a cogent challenge to the district court's ruling on the motion for new trial. The appeal does not merely present issues seeking to second-guess the district court on conflicting evidence. Accordingly, this Court denies Warren's request for attorney fees on appeal.