Court Opinion

ID: 9536062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 06:53:59.796091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:26.533361
License: Public Domain

SCHROEDER, Justice,
dissenting to part IV.
I dissent from Part IV of the Court’s decision in which it determines that the trial court abused its discretion by denying attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code Section 12-117 for litigating the conflict between Idaho Code Section 56-209c and rule 9095. The trial court articulated the basis for the denial. The trial court had the benefit of the briefs and the arguments made before it. It did not abuse its discretion in denying the attorney fees requested.
It would seem on the record before this Court that a simple reading of the statute and the rule establishes the conflict. However, the groups’ claim for attorney fees itself belies the simplicity of the issue as it must have been presented to the district court. The claim for fees by the group on this issue alone is in excess of $99,000.00. Either the issue was not as simple as it appears at this time or there has been an incredible inflation of the claim for fees. The district court treated the issue as one legitimately contested, which is consistent with the enormous claim for fees made by the group on this issue. There was no abuse of discretion, and the district court’s decision on this issue should be affirmed. The alternative is to determine that the group has made a $99,-*575000.00 request for attorney fees on an issue that could be resolved by a simple, facial reading of the statute and the rule — a process that should take less than an hour.