Keith A. Sims v. Dan S. Jacobson
157 Idaho 980
| Idaho | 2015Background
- In 2008 Sims (Kasco) contracted with Monument Heights to blast rock; he stopped work for nonpayment and recorded three mechanic’s liens in November 2008.
- Sims sued (May 2009) for lien foreclosure, breach of contract, and quantum meruit; he later amended to add the Jacobson group as defendants (Dec. 2009).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Jacobson group on the lien-foreclosure claim (statutory six-month enforcement rule) and on quantum meruit; Sims’s motion to continue was denied.
- The Jacobson group sought costs and attorney fees (excluding fees for the lien-foreclosure claim); the district court awarded $608.25 costs and $33,306 in fees under Idaho Code §§ 12-120(3) and 12-121 (frivolous conduct).
- Sims appealed multiple rulings but withdrew the appeals on lien-foreclosure and continuance issues; the only remaining issue was the district court’s fee award.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the fee award, granted sanctions under I.A.R. 11.2 for the lien-foreclosure appeal, and awarded appellate fees for defending the continuance/fee issues on appeal (with a temporal limitation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fees are recoverable under I.C. § 12-120(3) | Sims: no commercial transaction gravamen; overall suit was statutory lien priority, so § 12-120(3) shouldn't apply | Jacobson: breach and quantum meruit claims arise from commercial transaction; prevailing party entitled to fees on those claims | Fees affirmed under § 12-120(3) for breach and quantum meruit (analyze gravamen claim-by-claim) |
| Whether district court’s fee amount was unreasonable | Sims: fees should be limited to tasks defending complaint and summary judgment; some fees unrelated to allowable claims | Jacobson: fees were reasonable, necessary, and supported by Rule 54 factors | No abuse of discretion; Sims failed to make a cogent, specific challenge in opening brief |
| Whether sanctions/fees on appeal available for lien-foreclosure issue | Sims: appeal had merit based on alleged confusion of chain of title and tolling/notice arguments | Jacobson: appeal was frivolous; should be sanctioned under I.A.R. 11.2 | Sanctions awarded under I.A.R.11.2 (appeal not grounded in law/fact after reasonable inquiry) |
| Whether appellate fees recoverable for defending continuance/fee issues | Sims: (implicitly) not recoverable | Jacobson: entitled to appellate fees under § 12-120(3) because issues arose from commercial transaction | Appellate fees awarded for defending fee and continuance issues (limited for continuance to defense incurred through Feb 13, 2014) |
Key Cases Cited
- Intermountain Real Props., LLC v. Draw, LLC, 155 Idaho 313 (holding § 12-120(3) applies when claim’s gravamen is a commercial transaction)
- Brower v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 117 Idaho 780 (discussing gravamen analysis for § 12-120(3))
- Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Nw. Pipeline Corp., 136 Idaho 466 (articulating two-part test whether commercial transaction is integral to a claim)
- Willie v. Bd. of Trs., 138 Idaho 131 (award fees claim-by-claim when claims are separable)
- Flying A Ranch, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Fremont Cnty., 156 Idaho 449 (I.A.R. 11.2 construed like I.R.C.P. 11; signature certifications and sanctions test)
- Fonseca v. Corral Agric., Inc., 156 Idaho 142 (previous approach to I.A.R.11.2 sanctions; discussed in Court’s evolution of the rule)