430 P.3d 1284
Idaho2018Background
- Plaintiff Val D. Westover sued seeking a declaration that the Idaho Counties Risk Management Program (ICRMP) and its relationship with counties violate I.C. § 12-117(3)’s requirement that litigation expenses be paid from a political subdivision’s regular operating budget.
- This action followed earlier litigation between Westover and the Franklin County Assessor (Westover v. Cundick), in which Westover lost and no fees were awarded.
- ICRMP moved for summary judgment, arguing Westover lacked standing; Westover filed discovery motions and a Rule 56(d) response but did not submit the required affidavit/declaration.
- The district court granted summary judgment for ICRMP on standing grounds and later awarded ICRMP attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 after a motion to reconsider cured an initial itemization deficiency.
- Westover appealed the dismissal and the fee award; this Court affirmed the dismissal and the district court’s discretionary fee decision but denied appellate fees to ICRMP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by not deferring summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56(d) | Westover argued discovery was necessary and contended the court should not decide summary judgment before compelling discovery | ICRMP argued Westover failed to meet I.R.C.P. 56(d)’s affidavit/declaration requirement, so no delay was warranted | Court affirmed: Westover failed to comply with Rule 56(d) affidavit requirement; denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether Westover has standing to seek declaratory relief under I.C. § 10-1202 | Westover claimed status as a “person interested” because ICRMP’s structure undermines I.C. § 12-117(3) and that county officials’ conduct in prior suit increased litigation costs | ICRMP argued there is no actual or imminent injury to Westover and the claim is an advisory opinion | Court held Westover lacked standing; claim was hypothetical/advisory and not a justiciable controversy |
| Whether awarding fees to ICRMP under I.C. § 12-121 was an abuse of discretion | Westover argued the fee award is akin to sanctions and was improper | ICRMP argued the claim lacked foundation and fees were justified; district court applied discretionary standard and made findings | Court affirmed: district court acted within discretion, made findings supported by record; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Whether ICRMP is entitled to appellate attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 | Westover’s appeal was frivolous, so fees should follow | ICRMP sought fees on appeal | Court denied appellate fees: appeal not frivolous or without foundation |
Key Cases Cited
- Westover v. Cundick, 161 Idaho 933 (2017) (prior related litigation between the same parties)
- Brooksby v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 153 Idaho 546 (2012) (standing/justiciability guidance relied on by district court)
- Tucker v. State, 162 Idaho 11 (2017) (jurisdictional and standing review are questions of law)
- Fagen, Inc. v. Lava Beds Wind Park, LLC, 159 Idaho 628 (2016) (requirements for Rule 56(d) continuance affidavits)
- Wylie v. State, 151 Idaho 26 (2011) (declaratory relief and justiciability limits)
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937) (defining justiciable controversy for declaratory judgments)