David Kosmann v. Leo Gilbride, 386 P.3d 504

Kosmann sold his home to Gilbride via a short-sale arrangement in late 2012; Kosmann funded the $30,990 down payment and closing costs.
Kosmann and Gilbride allegedly had an oral side agreement that Gilbride would allow Kosmann to remain as tenant and later reconvey the property to him; that understanding was not disclosed to the lender.
To obtain lender approval for the short sale, the parties signed a Short Payoff Arms-Length Affidavit falsely denying any agreement for post-sale occupancy or reconveyance.
Kosmann sued seeking specific performance and other relief; the district court dismissed the specific-performance claim, awarded Kosmann $30,990 on unjust enrichment, and entered judgment for ejectment on Gilbride’s counterclaim.
Gilbride moved for attorney’s fees under the REPSA and Idaho Code § 12-120(3); the district court awarded only costs and denied attorney’s fees, finding the dispute involved conduct violative of public policy.
Gilbride appealed the denial of attorney’s fees; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, refusing to allow either party to benefit from fee-shifting given the fraudulent/illegal nature of the transaction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gilbride is entitled to attorney’s fees under the REPSA fee provision	Kosmann: REPSA does not cover the separate oral agreement; fees not warranted	Gilbride: REPSA attorney-fee clause entitles buyer to fees as prevailing party	Denied — court barred fee recovery because the transaction involved fraud/public-policy violations, so parties cannot claim contractual fee benefits (affirmed on alternate grounds using Trees)
Whether Idaho Code § 12-120(3) authorizes fees (commercial transaction)	Kosmann: § 12-120(3) inapplicable because gravamen was not a commercial transaction and parties engaged in wrongful conduct	Gilbride: litigation arose from a commercial real-estate transaction so § 12-120(3) applies	Denied — § 12-120(3) unavailable because parties sought to benefit from an illegal/void transaction; fee statute not applied to wrongdoers

Trees v. Kersey, 138 Idaho 3, 56 P.3d 765 (2002) (parties to an agreement void as against public policy may not recover attorney’s fees under contract or fee statutes)
Whitney v. Continental Life & Acc. Co., 89 Idaho 96, 403 P.2d 573 (1965) (courts will leave parties in the position found when a contract is void as against public policy)
Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893, 104 P.3d 367 (2004) (standard of review: attorney-fee awards are discretionary)
Martel v. Bulotti, 138 Idaho 451, 65 P.3d 192 (2003) (appellate affirmation may rest on alternate grounds when judgment reached correct result)