Court Opinion

ID: 9552694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:15:17.646598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:39.453335
License: Public Domain

ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
BISTLINE, Justice.
A perusal of the original file in the Clerk’s office discloses an order allowing augmentation of the record on respondent’s motion, the augmented record consisting of the trial court’s Findings of Fact relative to the issue of attorney’s fees.1 This document is dated the 10th day of November, 1980, which is almost four months after the entry of the order allowing costs .and attorney’s fees, and at a time when jurisdiction of the case had passed into this Court. The October, 1980 motion of respondent for augmentation in district court contains this:
“Defendants and Counterclaimants (Respondents) by and through their attorneys of record further move the Court to augment the Clerk’s record to include a written finding executed by the Court showing the basis and reasons for awarding attorney fees in the above entitled action on August 11, 1980.
*764“Defendants and Counterclaimants (Respondents) by and through their attorneys of record further represent that motion for allowance of attorney fees and costs was heard by the Court on August 11, 1980, and that the matter argued to the Court by respective counsel and the Court made a certain finding with respect to the allowance of attorney fees and costs but that the same were not reduced to writing and executed by the Court; that through mistake, inadvertance and excusable neglect such findings with respect to attorney fees and costs were not executed and filed with the Clerk; that failure to permit the execution and filing of such findings would be inconsistent with substantial justice and would affect the substantial rights of the parties and so representing, moves the Court to execute the attached proposed Findings as to the basis and reasons for awarding attorney fees to the Defendants (Respondents).” (Emphasis added.)
As noted by the emphasized portion, Respondents were belatedly submitting findings and conclusions, making significant that, as I had surmised and as the signed document recites, “that Counsel heretofore had stipulated that in the event the Court determined to award attorney fees to either party the Court would determine such reasonable fee without the necessity of calling witnesses.” (Emphasis added.) In my view, the counsel-prepared findings are totally inadequate for appellate review.2 Finding No. 12 is perhaps meant to address the prevailing party issue, but I fail to see that it does. It simply recites:
“12. That is appears from the file that the Complaint, Answer and Counterclaim and Answer to Counterclaim were filed; that the trial lasted two (2) days, there were eleven witnesses and eleven exhibits; that Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, original and amended, were filed; that judgment and amended judgment were filed; and two briefs or memorandums were filed on behalf of the Defendants, and objections to and motion to amend Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law were filed and hearings held on such amendments and motion for allowance of attorney fees and costs was filed and argued to the Court.”
Following the foregoing is that which apparently was intended to suffice as the trial court’s conclusion: “13. That by reason of the foregoing and the opportunity to settle the action, the filing of the same by the Plaintiffs was unreasonable and without foundation.”3 (Emphasis added.)
Being unable to see that the findings are adequate, ordinarily I would vote to remand for proper findings. Here, however, where *765the trial court’s conclusion is also based upon a premise that- there had been an “opportunity to settle the action,” I would simply reverse the award of attorney’s fees with directions to close the file. Payne v. Foley, 102 Idaho 760, 639 P.2d 1126 (1982).

. Apparently only one copy of the augmentation was received by the Clerk’s office, and copies had not been made or circulated when the September 1982 opinions issued from this Court. At least my office received nothing.

. Indicative examples are the following:
“3. That Plaintiffs filed their action against the Defendants notwithstanding Plaintiffs failure to farm the premises in a farmer-like manner, producing only 11.75 sacks of pinto beans per acre as opposed to an average yield of 24 sacks per acre.
“4. That Plaintiffs filed their action against the Defendants notwithstanding Plaintiffs failure to farm the premises in a farmer-like manner, producing only 5 sacks per acre of great northern beans as compared to an average yield of 23 sacks per acre.
“5. Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendants notwithstanding Plaintiffs failure to pay to Defendants one-half of the fall pasture, to-wit: Three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00).
“6. Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendants notwithstanding Plaintiffs refusal to pay one-half of the proceeds from domestic pasture the Defendants, to-wit: Two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).
“7. Plaintiffs filed suit against the Defendants notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiffs were to pay for alfalfa seed and charged the seed to the Defendants of Two hundred eighty seven dollars and fifty cents ($287.50).

. Briefs of counsel establish that plaintiffs brought suit for $2,729.37 in damages — and prevailed almost in full — hardly a suit brought without foundation. Defendants counterclaimed for $11,578.32 and recovered $5,906.67, or only approximately 50 percent of what they sought. It appears that of this amount, called “debt” by defendants, $2,129.85 and $2,155.73 were not liquidated debts, but were damages awarded after trial for claimed poor farming practices on plaintiffs’ part which the court found due defendants attributable to crop losses respectively of pinto beans and great northern beans.
The thrust of the appeal is the alleged failure to follow l.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B) wherein it requires apportioning fairly and equitably.