The Watkins Co v. Estate of Michael Storms, 161 Idaho 683

Watkins owned commercial property leased by Storms and Brownstone; lease became month-to-month after prior litigation.
Watkins sued in 2010 seeking a TRO and damages for alleged lease violations; a TRO issued conditioned on a $10,000 surety bond.
TRO lifted; Storms and Brownstone counterclaimed for damages caused by the TRO; seven-day bench trial followed.
Trial court awarded Watkins $699.64 and Storms/Brownstone $17,015.88, but recovery for Storms/Brownstone was limited to the $10,000 bond.
Storms and Brownstone sought roughly $80,000 in attorney fees; district court awarded 90% of requested fees ($72,312.36), disallowing 10% as attributable to counterclaim work not recoverable due to bond limitation.
Watkins appealed only the district court’s apportionment of attorney fees; the Supreme Court affirmed and awarded fees on appeal to Storms and Brownstone.

Issue	Watkins' Argument	Storms/Brownstone's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion in apportioning attorney fees between defense of Watkins’ claims and work on counterclaim	Apportionment (90% to defense) was not supported by substantial competent evidence; district court relied on familiarity rather than itemization	Issue was not preserved below; district court properly apportioned fees based on its familiarity with the case and evidence presented	Court refused to consider apportionment argument because Watkins failed to preserve it at trial and did not seek reconsideration
Whether prevailing parties on appeal may recover fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(3)	Not argued to defeat fees on appeal	Storms/Brownstone requested fees on appeal	Court awarded appellate attorney fees to Storms and Brownstone under § 12-120(3) because they prevailed and the dispute arose from a commercial transaction

Bott v. Idaho State Bldg. Authority, 128 Idaho 580, 917 P.2d 737 (Idaho 1996) (trial court has discretion to calculate reasonable attorney fees)
Lettunich v. Lettunich, 145 Idaho 746, 185 P.3d 258 (Idaho 2008) (burden on party opposing fee award to show abuse of discretion)
Miller v. EchoHawk, 126 Idaho 47, 878 P.2d 746 (Idaho 1994) (fee-award factual findings reviewed for substantial and competent evidence)
Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. Spackman, 150 Idaho 790, 252 P.3d 71 (Idaho 2011) (issues raised first on appeal generally not considered)
Fagen, Inc. v. Rogerson Flats Wind Park, LLC, 159 Idaho 624, 364 P.3d 1189 (Idaho 2016) (failure to object with particularity below bars fee-related challenges on appeal)
Brooks v. Gigray Ranches Inc., 128 Idaho 72, 910 P.2d 744 (Idaho 1996) (apportionment principles for attorney-fee awards)