Garner v. Povey, 151 Idaho 462

Garner plaintiffs sue Poveys over an easement across property formerly owned by the Poveys, asserting interference with the Garners' right of way and improper conveyances and warranty of the easement.
Original access road existed by prescription or prior use, but the deed to Daniel Garner did not grant an express easement; district court later found an easement by prescription or prior use for the Garners.
In 1992, the Poveys conveyed adjacent property to Gary and Nola Garner without expressly granting an easement; the deed asserted no encumbrances and warranted title.
From 1992 onward, multiple transfers by the Poveys' successors occurred, with ongoing disputes about the location and notice of the Garners' easement.
The district court granted summary judgment for the Poveys, holding servient-tenement duties to protect implied or prescriptive easements were not triggered and that no actionable interference occurred.
Poveys sought attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 and 12-120(3); the district court denied; the Poveys appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly struck Neigum's affidavit	Garners contended Neigum's testimony was irrelevant to § 12-121 issues.	Poveys argued motive evidence could inform frivolousness under § 12-121.	Affidavit properly struck; evidence irrelevant to fee issue.
Whether the district court properly denied § 12-121 fees	Garners' case involved debatable easement duties; fees appropriate if frivolous.	There were fairly debatable issues requiring legal analysis; no abuse of discretion.	No abuse; denial of § 12-121 fees affirmed.
Whether the district court erred in denying fees under § 12-120(3)	The case involved a commercial transaction; fees should be awarded if pleaded as such.	There was no basis to treat the dispute as commercial; insufficient transaction evidence.	Reversed; Garners’ allegations triggered § 12-120(3); Poveys entitled to fees and remanded.
Whether Poveys are entitled to fees on appeal	If § 12-120(3) applies below, fees on appeal may follow.	Prevailing party on appeal entitled to § 12-120(3) fees.	Poveys entitled to fees on appeal under § 12-120(3).

Magic Lantern Productions, Inc. v. Dolsot, 126 Idaho 805 (Idaho 1995) (establishes that pleading a commercial transaction can trigger § 12-120(3))
Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Northwest Pipeline Corp., 136 Idaho 466 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001) (two-step test for 12-120(3): the transaction must be integral and the basis for recovery)
Farmers Nat. Bank v. Shirey, 126 Idaho 63 (Idaho 1994) (contract-based fee triggering principle; fees may be awarded under 12-120(3) for commercial claims)
Snipes v. Schalo, 130 Idaho 890 (Ct. App. 1997) (misperception of law or interest is not enough to render position frivolous)
Chavez v. Barrus, 146 Idaho 212 (Idaho 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for fee decisions under 12-121)
C & G, Inc. v. Rule, 135 Idaho 763 (Idaho 2001) (fee determination requires assessing frivolous, unreasonable, or lack of foundation)
Gulf Chem. Employees Fed. Credit Union v. Williams, 107 Idaho 890 (Ct. App. 1984) (feasible to consider fairly debatable issues in § 12-121 analysis)
Ervin Construction Co. v. Van Orden, 125 Idaho 695 (Idaho 1993) (supporting analysis of contract and related fee principles)
Bingham v. Montane Resource Associates, 133 Idaho 420 (Idaho 1999) (fee awards under 12-120(3) require more than mere connection to a commercial transaction)