Court Opinion

ID: 9626599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:19:03.653783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:12.653356
License: Public Domain

BOYLE, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because, in my view, I.C. § 12-120(1) is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed consistent with the legislature’s intent. The objective of the legislature in enacting I.C. § 12-120(1) was to provide litigants in cases involving lesser amounts the ability to be made whole by allowing the prevailing party to collect attorney fees. See Swanson & Setzke v. Henning, 116 Idaho 199, 774 P.2d 909 (Ct.App.1989), which provides that the purpose of I.C. § 12-120 is to assist litigants in obtaining counsel by providing a potential source of fees in meritorious cases.
To the extent I.C. § 12-120(1) provides a right to litigants in cases involving small dollar amounts and furthers the public interest in providing adequate remedies to those involved in such cases, I.C. § 12-120(1) is a remedial statutory provision and as such should be liberally construed. See Doggett v. Electronics Corp. of America, 93 Idaho 26, 454 P.2d 63 1969); Franklin v. State, 87 Idaho 291, 392 P.2d 552 (1964).
In my view, the majority’s code pleading approach places form over substance and disregards the purpose of the statute. As a result of the majority’s decision today, a plaintiff desiring to bring a claim in the *986district court must plead damages “in excess of $10,000, but less than $25,000” in order to satisfy the jurisdictional amount and also come within the protection of I.C. § 12-120(1). Such a hypertechnical pleading requirement as adopted by the majority is unsupportable. See I.R.C.P. 9(g).1
Furthermore, although the language utilized in I.C. § 12-120(1) indicates the remedy is available to both plaintiffs and defendants, the majority’s ruling places defendants at the mercy of a plaintiff’s complaint irrespective of the actual amount of the claim asserted by the plaintiff. This unjustly denies a defendant the protection of I.C. § 12-120(1) even though that party has no control over the amount plead by the plaintiff.
In the instant case the prevailing irrigation company could not possibly have complied with or satisfied the requirements of the majority’s narrow interpretation of I.C. § 12-120(1). The irrigation district did not file a counterclaim affirmatively seeking damages but was simply the defending party. It was the plaintiff that alleged damages and, after being served with the complaint, the irrigation district filed an answer denying the alleged damages and prayed for an award of attorney fees in the event it prevailed. By holding that a trial court is not authorized to award attorney fees unless the amount actually “pleaded” is $25,000 or less, the majority’s unsupportable interpretation deprives the prevailing irrigation district of an award of attorney fees to which it is entitled.
In my view, the potential for abuse in pleading, and this Court’s obligation to effectuate the intent of the legislature, mandates a different approach. Where the amount plead in the complaint is ambiguous and where a defendant prevails, as was the case here, the evidence admitted at trial should be considered by the trial court in determining whether the remedial provisions of I.C. § 12-120(1) apply. By applying the statute in this manner, a prevailing defendant is not prejudiced or limited by a plaintiff’s pleadings and the legislature’s purpose in enacting I.C. § 12-120(1) will be carried out. Only in this manner will both parties stand on equal ground as relates to an award of attorney fees under the statute.
I would affirm the district court’s award of attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(1). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. I.R.C.P. 9(g) provides:
Rule 9(g).—When items of special damage are claimed they shall be identified by category and the specific dollar amount may be stated. When items of general damage or punitive damages are claimed, no dollar amount or figure shall be included in the complaint beyond a statement reciting that the jurisdictional amount established for filing the action is satisfied.