Bott v. Idaho State Building Authority

P.2d BOTT, Berg, Donald John Anton Hoar, Individually E.

James and as Joint

Venturers, Plaintiffs-Respondents- Appellants,

Cross

v. AUTHORITY,

IDAHO STATE BUILDING Independent Body Corporate,

an Public

Defendant-Appellant-Cross Respondent.

No. 21344. Opinion No. 49. Idaho,

Supreme Court of

Boise, December 1995 Term.

May Troxell, Boise,

Hawley, Hawley, & Ennis appellant. argued. P. Albert Barker Thomas, Boise, Hall, Nyman Farley, & Blanton, Boise, respondent. Oberrécht & Raymond Nyman Kenneth D. Powers D. argued.

McDEVITT, Justice. Chief This a breach of contract case involves Building Authority action. The Idaho State (the ISBA) architects, with Don- contracted Bott, Berg, Anton E. ald John and James Bott), to (collectively Hoar referred to as of a and administrate the construction project expand and modernize the for the Deaf and the Blind. State School completion project Prior to Bott project. pres- was terminated from the appeal case dis- ent is the ISBA’s from the denying portions trict court’s order n.o.v., denying for a ISBA’s motion motion for new ISBA’s interest, fees, awarding performed required architectural services Agreement, but that Bott encoun- cross-appeals costs. Bott from the district under the delays project granting judgment repeated court’s order n.o.v. on tered due readjust- frequent changes and Bott’s claims for an incentive bonus and for the ISBA’s provided by designs proposed by interior services Bott. ments to the Bott. The disagreed with Bott’s contentions and argued that Bott was difficult to work with

I. problems and that it its because caused own AND BACKGROUND FACTS it did not follow the structured chain of com- designs getting approved. mand for originated This matter 1987 and has $212,447.00. sought damages totalling This subject prior appeal been the of a before this following total consisted of the claims: Auth., Bldg. Court in Bott v. Idaho State 122 44,252.00 Basic fees under the contract (1992) (Bott I). $ 471, 835 P.2d 1282 38,314.00 Incentive bonus The relevant facts in this case are as follows. 10,905.00 Programming fees January the ISBA and Bott en- 118,976.00 Additional Services contract, provided tered into a provide Bott would architectural and other $212,447.00 TOTAL project renovate, for a expand, services $118,976.00 Bott’s claim for the additional and remodel facilities at the Idaho State services, presented as at consisted of School for the Deaf in Gooding, and Blind following the amounts: (the Agreement Idaho. Under the Architect 6,675.00 Landscaping $ Agreement) by parties, entered into the the 15,034.00 Educational Facilities pay ISBA was to Bott 7.75% of the total Design 3,600.00 Interior cost, 4,290.00 Redesign Roof plus, construction if the total construc- 89,377.00 Design2 Second Schematic $8,200,000.00, tion cost was less than ISBA was to reward Bott with an incentive bonus TOTAL of 10% of the amount which the total jury special finding The a $8,200,000.00. returned verdict

construction cost was less than substantially that Bott had Agreement performed The the provided any “additional contract until its requested termination and that the services” the ISBA would be compensated jury ISBA had breached the hourly rate, at an contract. The not to exceed general $201,- damages awarded Bott of specified Agreement. amounts in the 542.00, $2,250.00, an provided by less offset of for a total services Bott were to be divided $199,292.00. verdict of phases: into four There was no delin- the schematic eation phase, damages of the amount of design development the awarded phase, the jury respect the with to each of Bott’s claims. bidding phase, final documents and and the judgment The district court entered on the phase. completed construction Bott the 12,.1989. September verdict on phase, design phase, schematic provided and construction documents on the 20,1989, September On Bott a filed motion living units and the educational facilities to costs, interest, seeking and at- go July prior out to bid.1 In to the torney attorneys, fees for both of Bott’s Mr. completion phase, of the construction Nyman Kenneth Raymond and Mr. Powers. project. was terminated from the subsequently post-judgment filed subsequently seeking suit seeking filed com- motions a n.o.v. under pensation 50(b), completed for the work it had on I.R.C.P. a new trial under I.R.C.P. project. argued 59(a)(5), (a)(6), At (a)(7), trial Bott that it had a remittitur or September project split 1. On compensation was 2. Bott claims that it is entitled to I, performed stages: for into two distinct on a "second” Phase which involved schematic design, required school, since Bott was to revise the living work on the units at the and Phase times, designs II, schematic a number of such that which involved work on the educational facili- performed all of the work constituted a "second” ties. design. schematic n law. Id. additur, judgment vacating a applicable issues and stated at judgment. prior

court’s Any P.2d at jury 1287. errors prejudicial. instructions were held not to be The district court mo- denied the ISBA’s Id. On the issue fees, attorney the Court tion for n.o.v. on the issue of held that section 12-117 of the Idaho Code contract, granted trial on breach of but a new inapplicable was the reason that damages. court the sole issue The district “agency” not an ISBA was within mean- the errors in held that determina- statute, ing of the that an award but held damages enough to tion of were substantial attorney party jury prevailing un- fees support a conclusion that the acted below prejudice. § appropriate der the influence of The district Idaho Code 12- was not, 120(3). Id. at further it could 479-81, concluded that P.2d at 1290-92. it, upon the based record before make Attorney on appeal fees were not awarded in the determination case Id. party prevailed appeal. since neither purposes ordering a remittitur. P.2d at in- properly court held that remand, argued judg- On requested structed on the issues respect granted ment n.o.v. should be with presented instructions a correct statement bonus, claims for the incentive The court the law. declined to rule design, schematic landscaping second fees, costs, pre-judg- issue of work, design and the interior work. The interest, pending outcome of the ment further asserted that the ISBA is enti- January 22, trial. On the district new a new trial issues of tled to both Septem- vacating court entered an order damages. liability and judgment, ber to the extent ruling presented, on the issues the dis- damages granted awarded and a new trial damages jury’s general damage solely on the trict court divided the issue. $199,292.00 specific verdict of into amounts Court, appeal Supreme to the the case On each of for allocated to Bott’s claims dam- was remanded to the district court for recon- ages. These amounts were based of the ISBA’s sideration motion for trial, damages presented for claims less damages for clarifi- n.o.v. on the issue $10,905.00 claim programming for ser- for trial order. cation of the basis the new I, vices, jury appeared which the to have de- 122 Idaho at P.2d at 1292. Thus, general damage verdict held instructions nied. The Court also that the given jury, by accurately presented down the trial court as broken follows: Design

Basic Fee 44,252.00 Unpaid fee 7.75% $ 38,314.00 Incentive bonus $ 82,566.00

TOTAL BASIC DESIGN FEE $ Additional Services 6,675.00 Landscaping Work $ 15,034.00 Educational Facilities $ 3,600.00 Design Interior Work $ 4,290.00 Redesign Roof Work $ 89,377.00 Design Second Schematic $ $118,976.00

TOTAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES $201,542.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 2,250.00 $ OFFSET LESS NET VERDICT that, damage if the by

This breakdown the trial court was trict court concluded even premised upon specific into exhibits admitted award was more than what it would have clearly awarded, evidence at the and un- disparity great was not so equivocally set forth each claimed item of away explained could not be as the difference damage the amount thereof. The separate merely valuing the two entities general verdict mirrored these trial exhibits. proof damages equally in fair two party argues Neither that this breakdown ways. The district court found no influence general verdict the trial court was prejudice against passion ISBA the inaccurate. reduced and concluded that there was verdict granting pursuant a new trial no basis for prior The district court reversed its deci- 59(a)(5). I.R.C.P. granted judgment sion and n.o.v. with re- spect to Bott’s claims for the incentive bonus for a On ISBA’s motion new ($88,314.00) design and the interior work 59(a)(7), to I.R.C.P. the district court held ($3,600.00), and denied n.o.v. with no court’s refusal that there was error respect compensation to Bott’s claims for give requested jury instruc- ISBA’s ($6,675.00) landscaping and the sec- Thus, tions. concluded that ($87,377.00). ond schematic As a re- granting there was no basis for a new trial conclusion, sult its the district court re- 59(a)(7). under I.R.C.P. $199,292.00 jury duced the verdict filed renewed motion amount of the claim for the incentive bonus fees, costs, interest on services, and the interior and deter- April 1994. On October $157,378.00.3 mined totalled post-judgment district court awarded inter- upheld, verdict was as reduced est amounts those which had been reaf- the district court. ruling firmed from the court’s earlier The district court further concluded that pre-judgment upon awarded the interest granting there was no basis for a new trial claim, design landscaping schematic the 59(a)(5), (a)(6) (a)(7). under I.R.C.P. or claim, splitting of the educational facili- district court held that there was no basis for claims, redesign ties claims and the roof until granting pursuant a new trial to I.R.C.P. the time of trial. The district court held 59(a)(6) on the issues of Bott’s substantial claim, design on the schematic which the contract, performance of the the ISBA’s district court concluded un- was meritorious breach, and the ISBA’s claim for a set-off. meruit, theory quantum der the of became respect With to the issue of whether a new liquidated after the verdict on the claim was proper damages, was on the of issue Thus, pre-judg- reached. the court awarded upon district court relied the reduced sum of design ment interest on the schematic claim damages $157,378.00, rather than the verdict, entry from the time of the until the $199,292.00 jury. sum as awarded judgment. of the final The district court The district court concluded that there was further held the was not from immune granting no basis for a new trial interest under the doctrine of 59(a)(6), I.R.C.P. since the reduced sovereign immunity. Attorney fees were contrary against was not 12-120(3). § awarded to Bott under I.C. weight the clear of the evidence. appealed the decision The district court next concluded that court, cross-appealed. district and Bott award, upon damage based the reduced supported evidence Bott’s method of calculat- II. ing the costs for the additional schematic ISSUES PRESENTED APPEAL ON design holding work. that Bott’s method calculating costs for presents following the additional sche- The ISBA issues on reasonable, design matic appeal: work was the dis- reducing reject grant

3. The district court in the amount of the ISBA to elect or a conditional specifically the verdict did not order remittitur a new 59.1, under I.R.C.P. which would have allowed 586

(1) deny- substantial, Whether the district court erred in to be evidence considered re

ing judgment quires the ISBA’s motion for the evidence to “be of such sufficient quantity probative n.o.v. as to Bott’s claimed schematic re- value that reasonable minds could conclude work. that the verdict Stores, jury proper.” Safeway Mann v. (2) denying Whether district court erred Inc., 732, 736, 1194, Idaho 95 518 P.2d 1198 the ISBA’s motion for a new trial as to (1974); Transp. see v. Watson Navistar Int’l damage claims. 643, 658, 656, 121 Corp., Idaho 827 P.2d 671 (3) pre- the ISBA from Whether is immune question “The is not there is whether judgment interest under the doctrine of literally supporting party no evidence sovereign immunity. made, against whom the motion but wheth is (4) in Whether the district court erred er there is substantial evidence awarding post-judg- pre-judgment and properly could find a for that verdict ment interest Bott. Color, party.” Pocatello Auto Inc. v. Akzo (5) in Whether district court erred Inc., 949, Coatings 896 P.2d awarding attorney fees to Bott. (1995) Quick, (quoting 111 at 763- 953 Idaho (6) the ISBA or Bott is entitled to Whether 1191-92). If, reviewing at 727 P.2d after attorney fees on appeal. above, in the evidence set forth manner Bott, cross-appeal, presents in its follow- the Court finds that is substantial evi there ing to show that could issues: dence reasonable minds the same have reached conclusion as did the (1) Whether there is evidence to substantial jury, upheld. then the verdict will be support damage the total award. O’Dell, 1096; 119 Idaho at P.2d at 810 (2) deny- in Whether the district court erred Hudson, Idaho at at 797 P.2d ing judgment n.o.v. as to the incentive bonus. n.o.v., Upon a motion for (3) deny- moving party Whether district court erred admits the truth of the as to the interior every n.o.v. adverse evidence inference performed by may legitimately Bott. Poca be therefrom. drawn Color, 44-45, Auto at

tello Idaho 952-953; Quick, 111 P.2d at III. Thus, ruling P.2d at 1191. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V. determining sufficiency of the motion and the evidence, any the Court does not examine grant In reviewing the trial court’s presented by moving conflicting evidence n.o.v., or denial of a this Court non-moving party’s party to refute applies the same standard as does the Corp. King, 102 Idaho claims. Brand S v. originally ruling court when on the motion. 429, (1981). 731, 733, 639 P.2d 431 I, 474, 122 at 835 P.2d at 1285 764, (1992); Quick Crane, 759, v. 111 Idaho Judgment The For A. ISBA’s Motion (1986). 1187, 1192 is to 727 P.2d This Court Compen- Bott’s For N.O.V. On Claim all inferences review the record and draw Redesign For The sation Schematic in light most favorable to from the evidence a Improperly Denied. Was Work non-moving party determine whether argues justify substantial evidence exists to submit The ISBA Howell, judg- denying the motion for ting jury. Spence case to the v. in ISBA’s erred (1995); 763, 769, 714, on Bott’s claim for schematic 126 Idaho 890 P.2d ment n.o.v. Basabe, that the redesign work. The asserts v. 119 Idaho O’Dell 1082, 1096 redesign required under work was P.2d The determination schematic be is contract and as such should whether the evidence before the Court the basic provisions a under fee compensated to create of fact is the basic sufficient an issue alternative, Cobbs, Agreement. In the question of law. Hudson v. (1990); Quick, for “addi- argues that Bott’s claim is 797 P.2d services,” compensated 1187. For and should be 111 Idaho at 727 P.2d at tional basis, hourly provided Agree- redesign on an as in the Bott’s claim for schematic work and ment. district court. reverse the decision Agreement provides compen

The reject argument We Bott’s is sation for “all basic services” described in the compensation entitled to for schematic rede Agreement equal in an amount to 7.75% quantum sign the doctrine of work under cost, plus the total construction a 10% incen meruit. There is application no basis for tive bonus if the total cost of construction is quantum case; meruit Agree in this responsibilities, less that million. Bott’s $8.2 contemplates compensat ment a method Agreement, as in the described include “all redesign Bott for the schematic structural, architectural and mechanical and performed, theory argued was not engineering electrical services for the given jury and no instruction was facilities, ..., improvements sys of all quantum meruit. reject also We Project.” provisions tems for the Under the sup assertion that the entire verdict is responsibilities which establish Bott’s ported by substantial evidence. design phase project, schematic all required “perform professional Bott is Judgment B. The ISBA’s Motion For preparation services for the of a schematic Compen- N.O.V. On Bott’s Claim For Project design of the in conformance with the sation For The Incentive Bonus Was program requirements and the of the Au Properly Granted. thority (emphasis and State of Idaho.” add Bott, argues judg- cross-appeal, ed) Agreement provides also that addi improperly granted ment n.o.v. was on Bott’s requested tional services the ISBA would claim for the incentive bonus fee. Bott con- compensated hourly be on an basis. supports tends that substantial evidence Agreement unambig- We conclude that the jury’s verdict. uously provides for compensa- a set rate of Agreement parties between the Bott, performed by tion for all work includ- provides compensated that Bott would be ing change designs. orders on the schematic equal an amount to 7.75% of the total con The evidence reveals that required Bott was Agreement struction cost. provides also perform a number of revisions on the payment for the aof bonus as an incentive to designs, schematic required some of which keep the total cost of construction down. substantial reworking amount of and revi- provision provides The incentive bonus designs. sions on the The determination of compensated Bott would be in an amount whether the revisions to the schematic de- equal to 10% of the amount which signs constituted basic services or additional $8,200,- total construction cost is less than Agreement question services under the is a 000.00. The construction cost jury. of fact for the To the extent that the the basic fee and the incentive bonus is to be redesign schematic work was within the “all Agreement calculated is defined as basic provision Agreement, services” of the paid by “the total amount [the ISBA] to the compensation Bott received for the services performing construction contractor the con $44,252.00 part as of the awarded for basic struction respect pay work.” With to the fees. To the extent that the schematic rede- fee, ment of Agree the basic services the sign work constituted “additional services” provides ment also that Bott is to receive ISBA, requested by the Bott was entitled to monthly payments performed prior for work compensation hourly Since, on an basis. completion project, to the upon based present any Bott not did documentation of percentage of the total construction fee hourly performed work on the schematic re- by using calculated an of estimated cost con work, design the record does not contain struction. substantial support evidence to the verdict of compensation Bott’s entitlement to prior comple- Bott was terminated to the Quick, for redesign however, the schematic project, work. 111 tion of the there is no Idaho at 727 P.2d at dispute parties 1191. We conclude between the that the actual proper that n.o.v. is on the issue of complete pro- total construction cost to the ject $8,207,898.31. Bott is argues was vice fee and the incentive fee what was expressly parties. since the estimated “bid” construction cost of contemplated the $7,688,311.54 to was used calculate the There is no evidence substantial the monthly compensation amount of Bott was to upon record minds which reasonable could provided, for basic services the receive “bid” $38,314.00 conclude that the award of for the should also be de- construction cost used to Judgment proper. incentive was n.o.v. bonus Bott entitled termine whether is to the incen- bonus as to Bott’s claim for the incentive was disagree. tive parties’ bonus. We properly granted. Agreement the establishes terms of Bott’s compensation performed for work the under Judgment For C. ISBA’s Motion Agreement. The basic fee the incentive Compen- For N.O.Y. On Bott’s Claim upon to be calculated the bonus are based Design sation The Interior Claim For paid actual total construction cost to the con- Properly Was Granted. In struction contractor. order to allow Bott monthly payments to prior receive $3,600.00 At in damages Bott claimed n completion project, Agreement design cross-appeal, for interior On fees. provides compensa- an method of alternate argues Bott that there is substantial evidence Without this n tion service fees. for the basic support the record to verdict on provision, only compensating basis for this claim. performed Bott for basic services would be cost, based on the actual total construction specifically Agreement classifies completion unknown until the of was design as “additional interior services ser Thus, project. Bott could not entire services, Agree vices.” Additional under any compensation prior the com- receive to basis, ment, hourly are on an compensated pletion of the construction without payment with a maximum for the provision. monthly compensation No such parties do design interior services. The not compensation provided of alternate method is dispute design services the interior are of for the incentive bonus. Under the terms under considered additional services sole method Agreement, the of determin- Thus, for Bott Agreement. in order to re whether Bott is entitled the incentive compensation ceive for the interior upon the actual of bonus is based total cost required performed, keep Bott was paid to the construction contrac- construction hours records the number of worked on tor that amount is less than and whether $8.2 design. the interior cost of million. Since the total construction how During Bott was asked trial Mr. $8,207,898.31, not an was Bott is entitled to $3,600.00 figure interior for Bott’s terms of the incentive bonus response, Mr. claim was calculated. Agreement. $3,600.00figure merely testified To calculate an incentive bonus based performed. an estimate the work Mr. “bid” cost construction estimated Hoar that time sheets were testified at trial purpose incen- would defeat the behind the design.work kept per- not the interior tive The bonus was offered as an bonus. any evidence of the formed Absent Bott. keep total cost construc- incentive to on the interior de- number of hours worked If the tion million. bonus could below $8.2 compensating sign, there is no means amount, be on the “bid” there would based these conclude there is services. We project to keep be motivation for Bott no sup- to in the record no substantial evidence Thus, Bott could submit- costs down. have design interior services. port Bott’s claim for bid, regard- ted and received the bonus a low comply- from Bott that it is excused claims project. less final cost of the an of the Such Agreement keep to of the with terms provi- the incentive interpretation of bonus it did asserts that not time records. Bott pur- provision sion and its would render requests payment for interior submit for Additionally, pose meaningless. it seems performed during the course work elementary that same construction rather Bott informed that project because the ISBA cost both the basic ser- figure to determine longer of a trial will not the interior construction work was no The trial court’s denial new showing part project and that another interior be overturned without a clear Watson, 121 designer perform design abuse of discretion. Idaho at would the interior 655, determining 827 P.2d at 668. In wheth work. claims that submitted a re- quest payment design for for the er there was an abuse of discretion interior (1) court, consider, discovered, during services after it the law- trial this Court must suit, correctly perceived paid that the whether trial court ISBA had for the interior (2) discretion, designs. the issue as one of construction and had used Bott’s whether Thus, Bott claims that there is trial court acted within the outer boundaries substantial support jury’s consistently any and evidence to decision that such discretion with choices, performed design legal applicable specific standards to the interior work and (3) and the trial court reached its complying Bott is excused from whether with Agreement through due to the decision an exercise of reason. ISBA’s actions. O’Dell, 813, 1099; 119 Idaho at P.2d at Contrary argument, to Bott’s it was not Center, Valley Shopping Sun Inc. v. Idaho completely designs unknown to Bott that its Co., 993, Power 119 Idaho 803 P.2d being were used and that the interior con- (1991). ruling In on a motion for new being performed. struction was still During trial, court has the discretion to initially Mr. Bott testified that Bott order a new trial a remittitur in order and/or performed work on the interiors and that perceives miscarriage to correct what it as a even after Bott was informed that the interi- justice. Galey, Sanchez v. performed or construction work towas be 1234, 1239 733 P.2d designer, another interior Bott still im- plemented and corrected The district court information on the denied the ISBA’s mo- performed pursuant interiors and tions for new trial to work on some cabi- I.R.C.P. (a)(7).4 59(a)(5), (a)(6), drawings. net dispute par- ruling on the between the ties is not over when Bott ISBA’s motion for new trial on the issue of filed for this claim, 59(a)(6), why liability delay or there was a under I.R.C.P. Bott’s jury’s assertion explained finding of the claim. At issue is court that the verdict the lack hourly performed Agreement evidence of work the ISBA breached the to support substantially claim design performed Bott’s for the that Bott interior Agreement, supported services. Even for the substantial services were ev- admittedly Bott, performed by testimony. there is no idence and credible The district hourly disagreed substantial evidence in court that it the record of however stated with performed support damages. Bott’s claim for determination of design the interior services. claim district court next concluded that there was granting interior no supported by work is not basis a new trial 59(a)(6) substantial evidence. I.R.C.P. on the claim for a We conclude that ISBA’s $136,726.00 proper n.o.v. was set-off. The court stated that on this issue. claim was based on the claim that Bott substantially performed had not under the IV. Agreement. disagreed district THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT sup- concluded substantial evidence ERR IN THE DENYING ISBA’S ported the verdict.

MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL The court then turned to the issue of dam- issue, grant deny ages. ruling

The decision to Before $38,314.00 generally motion for new trial rests within the district court deleted jury’s damage the sound discretion of the trial court. verdict for the incentive bo- O’Dell, 1099; nus, 119 Idaho at 810 P.2d at for the interior Quick, services, 111 Idaho at 727 P.2d at 1194. in accordance with its decision on challenged appeal. 4. The district court's denial of the ISBA's motion 59(a)(7) pursuant for new trial to I.R.C.P. is not 590 judgment passion prejudice,

the ISBA’s motion for n.o.v. The influence of or then a new proceeded district court then to determine be granted. trial should Id. court The trial a granted whether new trial should be on the deny state its granting must reasons for or $157,378.00. reduced verdict of The district trial, ing a new those unless reasons are portion jury’s court the concluded that of the O’Dell, from evident the record. 119 Idaho totalling contrary verdict was not 806, 810 P.2d at at 1092. against weight to the the evidence or clear challenges the evidence thus held no the district that there was granting for to pursuant basis a new trial court’s denial its motion for trial and new 59(a)(6). I.R.C.P. The court argues further conclud- that the district court erred in reduc that, weighing ed after the jury’s general damage evidence the amount of the comparing jury’s to the award what the dis- prior making a verdict to determination of awarded, trict court would have the a whether new trial was warranted. The verdict, as reduced the elements of dam- argues also the district court upon age judgment granted, which n.o.v. was rulings combining its on erred the motion given passion was not under the influence of judgment for and the n.o.v. motion for new prejudice. or The district court concluded trial. The ISBA contends that granting that there for a was no basis new court’s denial of the for new ISBA’s motion 59(a)(5). pursuant trial to I.R.C.P. is its grant trial inconsistent with of the judgment motion ISBA’s n.o.v.

Under the Idaho of Civil Rules Procedure, may granted a on new trial be It the is well established any all of if or the issues an action the trial court must rule on the motions for damages inadequate awarded are or exces judgment separately. n.o.v. and for new trial sive, given appearing to have been under the Quick, 767, 111 727 Idaho at P.2d at 1195. prejudice, influence of or passion I.R.C.P. complied The district court with this man 59(a)(5), ifor the evidence is insufficient to and ruled the mo date n.o.v. support contrary the verdict or the verdict is separately tions from the new trial motions. 59(a)(6). law, Sanchez, to 112 Idaho I.R.C.P. portions The district court then deleted the 614, determining 733 at P.2d at 1239. In of Bott’s claims for the incentive bonus and grant deny pursu to a whether new trial interior total for the services from the 59(a)(6), ant to I.R.C.P. the trial court is to verdict, jury on its based conclusion evidence, weigh including all granted n.o.v. should be on those credibility judge’s own determination elements. Once the two elements of dam witnesses, and determine whether damages ages were deducted from total supported by is verdict evidence. San verdict, ruled awarded the court Galey, chez v. 772 P.2d solely new motions on the on the trial 766, (1989); Quick, 111 at 727 It is amount reduced verdict. within P.2d at 1194. If the trial court is satisfied identify discretion to the district court’s supported by the verdict is not or is claim, damage a elements of based evidence, contrary may then in its presented at and to determine evidence O’Dell, grant a new trial. discretion elements to redact and which elements Sanchez, 1091; Idaho at P.2d at methodology approve. court’s The district Idaho at 772 P.2d 706. Where dividing up jury’s general damage is based a claim motion new trial specific damage as into elements of verdict inadequate damages that the are or excessive unique, during may trial be 59(a)(5), claimed court to I.R.C.P. the trial pre contrary was not evidence but weigh compare is to the evidence then during court trial. to the district sented award of to what general Specifically, jury’s total verdict if no judge would have awarded there were damages. Sanchez, trial exhibits on at mirrored Bott’s jury. 112 Idaho at 733 P.2d Further, argues party neither that the disparity If the two between incor apportionment in this case was great appears is so that it to the trial court’s awards that the under the rect. award was rendered pre-judgment We also conclude that there was no interest under the doctrine of judgment immunity. disagree. merger sovereign n.o.v. issues and the We new trial issues the district court. The that, general It is the rule permitted grant judgment district court is sovereign immunity, gov the doctrine of a n.o.v. and then determine whether a new trial only upon ernmental unit can be sued its proper. Accordingly, is we conclude University consent. Utah v. Twin Falls district court did not abuse its discretion in 1010, 1017, County, 122 Idaho 842 P.2d denying the ISBA’s motion for a new trial. prevents The same doctrine state, assessment of interest on debts of the

V. without the state’s consent. Id. sovereign conclude that the doctrine of We PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST & POST- immunity apply does In not ISBA. JUDGMENT INTEREST I, (1992), 835 P.2d 1282 A. The District Court Had Jurisdiction public the Court held that the ISBA was a Pre-judg- To Rule On Issues of instrumentality “agency” and not a state Post-judgment ment and Interest. purposes denying the award of argues The ISBA that the trial court did § fees under I.C. 12-117. Id. at jurisdiction not pre-judgment have to award holding, P.2d In at 1289. so the Court deter post-judgment or interest after notice of entity mined that the was an distinct appeal was filed. The trial court entered its separate and from the state of Idaho. C.f. awarding pre-judgment post- ordered § (providing obligations I.C. 67-6419 that the on interest October after and debts of the do not become the appeal the notices of cross-appeal State). had obligations and debts of the been filed. sovereign district court’s conclusion that im munity prevent does not the assessment of Appellate provides Rule 13 pre-judgment against interest the ISBA is filing appeal of a notice of or affirmed. cross-appeal, proceedings notice of all judgments execution of all in a civil action in Awarding C.The District Court Erred court, automatically district shall be Pre-judgment Interest To Bott. stayed period for a days. of 14 The Rule pre-judg The district court awarded permits exceptions certain to the automatic ment interest on those amounts that it con 13(b). stay proceedings. I.A.R. Under liquidated cluded capable were or of ascer 13(b), I.A.R. authority the trial court has the process. tainment a mere mathematical to, upon motion, a findings amend of fact or pre-judgment court concluded that inter law, 13(b)(3), conclusions of I.A.R. to amend proper claim, est was landscaping judgment, 13(b)(4), I.A.R. or to rule on splitting claim, of the educational facilities 60(a) any (b), motion under I.R.C.P. I.A.R. claims, redesign and the roof which totalled 13(b)(6). We conclude that $23,749.00,until the time of trial. The dis 13(b), juris I.A.R. the district court had the trict court pre-judgment also awarded inter diction to rule on the of pre-judgment issues est on the schematic claim from the post-judgment during pen interest entry time of the verdict until dency appeal. of an entry judgment. of the final The ISBA argues that the district court erred award B. The ISBA Is Not Immune From Pre- ing pre-judgment interest since the judgment Interest Under The Doctrine finally not were ascertainable until the dis Sovereign Immunity. Of trict court ruled on the ISBA’s motion for argues The ISBA agree. n.o.v. on remand. We awarding pre-judgment court erred in inter against est the ISBA. The party ISBA asserts A is entitled to public instrumentality, because it § is money interest under I.C. 28-22-104 for against ISBA is immune express the assessment of due contract or when it becomes 592 (2). (i.e. 28-22-104(1), against § Pre-judgment

due. rier to Bott tort claims I.C. defend only malpractice claims), may may prin- counsel not interest be awarded when the recover 12-120, cipal liability attorney § under contract is under I.C. at- amount fees since torney fees liquidated ascertainable a mathe- are not recoverable under I.C. or mere § 12-120 where the action sounds in tort. matical calculation. Ervin Constr. Co. v. Orden, Van 125 Idaho P.2d 874 I, holding in Pursuant this Court’s to Bott 515 Based terms of attorney pur- the district court awarded fees Agreement parties between the and based on 12-120(3) § to and also suant I.C. case, our in this earlier decisions we conclude 54(e)(3). to I.R.C.P. The district court con- liability that amount of principal approach cluded that the most reasonable to liquidated readily not Agreement was resolving attorney fees the issue of was to pre-judg- in a fashion to award ascertainable underlying character consider the of the ment The interest to Bott. district court’s case. The court concluded that the district pre-judgment interest award of is reversed. in contract nature action was and that attorney proper § under I.C. 12- fees were Awarding D. Erred In The District Court 120(3), regardless fact that in- of the Bott’s Post-Judgment Upon Interest a Va- part repre- of Bott’s provided surance carrier Judgment. cated sentation. post-judg The asserts that ISBA calculation of reasonable at The judg ment cannot be interest awarded on torney fees is within the discretion of the ment nullified when district that was Color, trial court. Pocatello Auto Inc. v. court a new trial and that was subse ordered Inc., Idaho at Coatings, Akzo 896 original judg quently vacated. Because at of whether P.2d 955. The determination vacated, argues ment the ISBA was attorney proper requires an award of fees is upon judgment post-judg there is no analysis underlying an character of the may agree. ment interest accrue. We at who is law suit and does not look counsel post-judg- award of The district court’s representing party, or who hired that ment in a va- interest on awarded I, In counsel. Bott this Court concluded judg- judgment cated was error. Once the gravamen was a of the law suit commer vacated, ment there was no was 12-120(3) § cial that I.C. transaction such upon post-judgment could be which a interest awarding attorney proper was a basis for has held no inter- awarded. This Court I, at fees. Bott P.2d begins est to accrue on a vacated The looked nature district court Sanchez, entry judgment. until the of a new underlying action and concluded 772 P.2d at 705. Accord- Idaho at so, doing attorney In proper. fees were ingly, post-judg- award district court’s it understood that the court indicated that ment interest is reversed. act, discretionary attorney fees is a award of its acted within the discretion boundaries VI. legal proper stan with the consistent dards, through its conclusion an reached FEES ATTORNEY Accordingly, the district exercise reason. argues that district discretion, its and the court did not abuse attorney fees. hired awarding erred in Bott affirmed. award of fees is attorneys Raymond Powers and Kenneth Nyman in this Mr. represent matter. VII. professional mal- hired Bott’s Powers was practice insurance carrier defend CONCLUSION claim, against set-off based the ISBA’s conclusion, judg- motion for inadequately the ISBA’s allegation that the ISBA’s on Bott’s claim for the granted ment n.o.v. is performed asserts the contract. work, the interior that, redesign for Bott hired schematic counsel because work, incentive bonus. district malpractice car- insurance professional court’s denial of the ISBA’s motion for a new 917 P.2d 750 trial is affirmed. We conclude that the dis- In the Matter of Kris J. jurisdiction trict court had to rule on the Cserepes, Claimant. post-judgment issues of BRANCHFLOWER, Employer, Michael affirm interest and the district court’s conclu- Plaintiff-Appellant, pre- sion the ISBA is not immune from judgment interest under the doctrine of sov- v. ereign immunity. We reverse the district Idaho, DEPARTMENT OF STATE post-judg- court’s award of EMPLOYMENT, Defendant- ment interest and affirm the district court’s Respondent. attorney award of fees and costs. No costs appeal. fees are awarded on No. 21820. Idaho, Supreme Court of SCHROEDER, J., and TRANSTRUM and Boise, February 1996 Term. WOOD, Tern., JJ. Pro concur. May JOHNSON, Justice, concurring part in dissenting part. in opinion,

I concur in all of the Court’s ex- (The

cept part IV District Court Did Not Err Denying the ISBA’s Motions for New

Trial). my view, considering the mo-

tion for new court should have verdict, jury’s

considered the amount of the

rather than the damage reduced award the

trial court granting judgment arrived at

notwithstanding By the verdict. first reduc- verdict, inappro- the trial court

priately mixed its functions under I.R.C.P.

50(b) 59(a)(5) and its functions under I.R.C.P. I do not understand how the trial

court could assess the excessiveness of the

amount awarded or whether the supported by award was not sufficient law, against

evidence or was when the only

trial court assessed these factors in award,

relationship to the trial court’s not the

jury’s award.

Case Details

Case Name: Bott v. Idaho State Building Authority

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: May 17, 1996

Citation: 917 P.2d 737

Docket Number: 21344. 1996 Opinion No. 49

Court Abbreviation: Idaho