Smith v. Washington County Idaho
150 Idaho 388
| Idaho | 2010Background
- David D. Smith sought to compel Washington County to issue a residential building permit for an 80-acre parcel near Midvale, Idaho.
- The County Planning and Zoning Commission denied the permit, finding the driveway too narrow for fire equipment under fire-safety codes.
- The Washington County Board of Commissioners likewise denied the permit after delays, citing the same driveway concerns.
- Smith filed for mandamus, which the district court treated as a petition for judicial review, and the court reversed and ordered issuance of the permit.
- Smith then sought attorney fees and costs under I.C. §§ 12-117, 12-120(3), and 12-121; the district court denied fees, and the court did not award costs.
- The Idaho Supreme Court held that, as amended in 2010, § 12-117 does not authorize fee awards in petitions for judicial review of administrative decisions, and that § 12-120(3) and § 12-121 also do not apply in this context; costs were not awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith is entitled to attorney fees under § 12-117 | Smith seeks fees for the petition for judicial review. | County contends § 12-117 does not authorize such fees in this context. | Not entitled; § 12-117 as amended does not authorize fees in judicial reviews of administrative decisions. |
| Whether Smith is entitled to fees under § 12-120(3) | Smith seeks fees under the commercial transaction provision. | § 12-120(3) does not apply to this administrative-review context and § 12-117 is exclusive. | Not entitled; in this context § 12-117 governs fees exclusively. |
| Whether Smith is entitled to fees under § 12-121 | Smith seeks fees under the general discretion provision for civil actions. | § 12-121 is not applicable to petitions for judicial review of administrative decisions and § 12-117 governs. | Not entitled; § 12-117 governs fee entitlement here. |
| Whether Smith is entitled to costs in the district court | Smith should recover costs as prevailing party in the civil action. | This is not a civil action; costs are not recoverable under the applicable rules. | Not entitled; petition for judicial review of an administrative decision is not a civil action for purposes of costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rammell v. Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture, 147 Idaho 415, 210 P.3d 523 (2009) (held that courts may not award attorney fees in administrative proceedings)
- Lake CDA Invs., LLC v. Idaho Dep't of Lands, 149 Idaho 274, 233 P.3d 721 (2010) (distinguishes administrative vs. civil judicial proceedings and review procedures)
- Sanchez v. State, 143 Idaho 239, 141 P.3d 1108 (2006) (petition for judicial review is not a civil action for purposes of § 12-117)
- Neighbors for Responsible Growth v. Kootenai Cnty., 147 Idaho 173, 207 P.3d 149 (2009) (pertains to procedural posture in review actions)
- State v. Maybee, 148 Idaho 520, 224 P.3d 1109 (2010) (recognizes legislative change to fee-shifting in § 12-117)
- Potlatch Educ. Ass'n v. Potlatch Sch. Dist., 148 Idaho 630, 226 P.3d 1277 (2010) (exclusive basis for attorney-fees against state agencies; § 12-117 controls)
- J.R. Simplot Co. v. W. Heritage Ins. Co., 132 Idaho 582, 977 P.2d 196 (1999) (exemplifies statutory interpretation and fee provisions)