Tapadeera, LLC v. Knowlton, 280 P.3d 685

Tapadeera owned an eight‑acre platted lot sold as two parcels after lender foreclosure; Knowltons later sought to acquire both parcels.
Knowltons signed a settlement agreement to subdivide the platted lot and pay Tapadeera $23,421 within 30 days, contingent on county subdivision approval and cooperation.
County subdivision application was filed Jan 12, 2010 but the Knowltons withdrew after a notice error; easements and access requirements were central to the subdivision.
Tapadeera sought enforcement of the settlement after the withdrawal, and the district court granted summary judgment enforcing the agreement on Oct 15, 2010; Knowltons moved to reconsider.
The court denied Knowltons’ motion for reconsideration and later denied Tapadeera’s fee requests under various statutes; cross‑appeals followed.
This Court affirms the district court’s judgment and discusses attorney fees on appeal, the clerk’s title, and related procedural issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err in granting summary judgment enforcing the settlement?	Tapadeera contends Knowltons prevented performance by withdrawing the subdivision application.	Knowltons argue the agreement was breached by Tapadeera’s actions and that performance should not be enforced.	No reversible error; performance excused due to Knowltons’ withdrawal.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees under 12-121 on appeal?	Tapadeera seeks fees for defending the appeal as prevailing party on some issues.	Knowltons contend fees should be awarded for frivolous defenses and total defense during proceedings.	Tapadeera not prevailing party on appeal; no fee award under 12-121.
Should Cary Hamilton’s name have been added to the clerk’s record on appeal?	Hamilton maintains an interest as plaintiff; inclusion affects rights on appeal.	No substantial rights harmed; no change to judgments required.	Ruling sustained; not reviewable absent substantial rights harm.
Are Tapadeera’s fee requests on appeal permissible under 12-120(1) and related rules?	Tapadeera argues for fees under 12-120(1), 12-121/123, and procedural rules.	Fees under 12-120(1) and 12-123 are inappropriate on appeal; Rule arguments fail.	No award under 12-120(1) or 12-123; 12-121 denied for lack of prevailing status.

Infanger v. City of Emmett, 137 Idaho 45 (2002) (summary judgment standard and rule of construction on disputed facts)
Idaho Power Co. v. Cogeneration, Inc., 134 Idaho 738 (2000) (burden of proving contract breach and excuses to performance)
Magic Valley Radiology Associates, P.A. v. Professional Business Services, Inc., 119 Idaho 558 (1991) (total defense must be considered in determining frivolous conduct)
Bluestone v. Mathewson, 103 Idaho 453 (1982) (unpled affirmative defenses may be considered if raised with motion for summary judgment)
Spencer v. Jameson, 147 Idaho 497 (2009) (12-123 applicability on appeal and related fees)
Rudd v. Merritt, 138 Idaho 526 (2003) (attorney fees on appeal; prevailing party standard)
Houston v. Whittier, 147 Idaho 900 (2009) (notice and rights; procedural posture on appeal)
KEB Enters., L.P. v. Smedley, 140 Idaho 746 (2004) (fee award standards on appeal and prevailing party analysis)