357 P.3d 1270
Idaho2015Background
- The district court denied Sky Canyon's memorandum for attorney fees and costs upon remand following this Court's reversal.
- This Court reversed the district court and held Sky Canyon prevailed on appeal and was entitled to costs and attorney fees under the CCRs.
- Remittitur directed that costs and fees would be addressed in a subsequent order, but the district court later denied them on remand.
- Sky Canyon sought fees under CCRs § 24.8 and, alternatively, under Idaho Code § 12-121; the district court relied on Star Phoenix and preserved issues.
- The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award pre-appeal fees on remand and that Sky Canyon failed to preserve the issue in the district court.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the district court did have post-remand jurisdiction to address costs and attorney fees and that Sky Canyon properly sought fees under the CCRs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court jurisdiction on remand | Sky Canyon argues the district court had jurisdiction to award pre-appeal costs and fees on remand. | Golf Club argues no remand jurisdiction and reliance on silence of this Court on pre-appeal fees. | District court had jurisdiction to award pre-appeal costs and fees on remand. |
| Authority for fees under CCRs on remand | Sky Canyon correctly sought fees under §24.8 of CCRs. | Golf Club contends CCRs were not properly invoked or preserved. | Fees under CCRs §24.8 were appropriate. |
| Preservation requirement for pre-appeal fees on remand | No preservation requirement; issues may be decided on remand after reversal. | Sky Canyon needed to preserve pre-appeal fees in the district court. | No preservation requirement; remand proceedings allowed consideration of pre-appeal fees. |
| Costs and fees on appeal | Sky Canyon is prevailing party on appeal and thus entitled to costs and fees under CCRs §24.8. | Golf Club contests the amounts and applicability of CCRs on remand. | Sky Canyon entitled to costs and fees on appeal under §24.8. |
Key Cases Cited
- Star Phoenix Min. Co. v. Hecla Min. Co., 130 Idaho 223 (Idaho, 1997) (remand directive as to costs and fees not controlling jurisdictional reach)
- Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Nw. Pipeline Corp., 136 Idaho 466 (Idaho, 2001) (remand changing prevailing party grants post-appeal cost determinations)
- Hummer v. Evans, 132 Idaho 830 (Idaho, 1999) (reversed verdict changes prevailing party; district court may address fees related to appeal)
- Chemetics, Inc. v. Indus. Inv. Corp., 130 Idaho 255 (Idaho, 1997) (when not passed on, district court may determine prevailing party and fees on remand)
- Oakes v. Boise Heart Clinic Physicians, PLLC, 152 Idaho 540 (Idaho, 2012) (appropriate time to assert authority and preserve fee rights in costs memorandum)
- Eighteen Mile Ranch, LLC v. Nord Excavating & Paving, Inc., 141 Idaho 716 (Idaho, 2005) (failure to list fees in pleadings not fatal to fee claim when supported by memorandum)
- J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics Int'l, Inc., 130 Idaho 255 (Idaho, 1997) (free review on jurisdiction and subsidiary issues related to attorney fees)
- Hutchins v. State, 100 Idaho 661 (Idaho, 1979) (reversal restores posture prior to judgment for issues not passed on)