*1 164

667 P.2d 267 Idaho,

The STATE of ex rel Carl C.

MOORE, Lloyd Roy F. Barron and I.

Stroschein, Transportation Board, Idaho

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

Raymond Betty Lawson, LAWSON and his

Wife; and Wendell B. Platt and Wilma Platt, Wife,

Jean Husband and Defend-

ants-Appellants.

No. 13903. Appeals of of

Court Idaho. 7,

June 1983. 27, Denied

Rehearing July 1983. 4, 1983.

Petition for Review Denied Oct. Jr., Miller, Gigray, Gigray, of

William F. Weston, Caldwell, for defend- Downen & ants-appellants. Boise, Trabert, plaintiffs- for

Robert L. respondents.

PER CURIAM. appeal judgment an a in a

This is from jury The awarded condemnation action. $13,000 Platt as Wendell and Wilma Jean land compensation for a of taken to strip of complete the construction Interstate Caldwell, through Ray- 84 Idaho. Highway were sell- Betty mond and Lawson contract they property, appears ers of the and it that the were to action. only parties nominal judgment inadequate, the to be Believing the appealed. Platts problem of We faced with a threshold are was judgment The appellate jurisdiction. 19,1980, the to allowing filed June state on upon lands an easement acquire certain and $13,000 interest to the and payment of judg- of the paragraph The final Platts. where the amounts ment blanks contained be inserted. attorney fees could of costs and of a memorandum The Platts then filed *2 165 supported fees. could not be as to either attorney ing affidavit for costs and an attorney to fees in this case. We have objection party The filed an reviewed the state costs. The court and we appeal and a motion to disallow record on do not find any 25, and on July these motions on judge’s ruling heard in the concerning error attor- denying attor- August 15 entered an order Accordingly, fees. we affirm the ney order on awarding Finally, costs. ney fees but awarding denying costs and attorney fees. 24,1980, a notice the Platts filed September respondent, to Costs State of Idaho. and from the judgment of from the appeal fees. regarding attorney order costs and DENIAL OF ON PETITION must be filed appeal A notice of FOR REHEARING filing the of days

within 42 of the date of Failure to file a judgment. the I.A.R. 14. PER CURIAM. is notice of within this time limit appeal a for petition rehearing, In the jurisdictional an “automatic requires and that a urged judgment Platts have which 21. The appeal. dismissal” of the I.A.R. for insertion contains a blank of costs time for be extended filing appeal may an judgment should not be considered a final which, “by filing the of a motion if timely activating ap for of the time for purposes fact, granted, any findings could affect of However, peal. principal as noted in our in the any judgment conclusions of law or 14(a) provides I.A.R. to the con opinion, However, 14 spe action.” I.A.R. 14. Rule Furthermore, 58(a) trary. provides I.R.C.P. regarding that motions cifically provides the not “entry judgment that the of shall not extend the attorney costs and fees do the of delayed taxing be for costs.” See judg the filing appeal time for an from 429, O’Reilly, v. 80 Idaho 333 also John St. ment. 100 Idaho McIntyre, See Wheeler v. McPherson, v. (1958), P.2d 467 and Cantwell 286, 290, 798, (1979). 596 P.2d 802 Because 321, (1892). 29 P. 102 3 Idaho filing objection the the state of its and by fees concerning attorney motion costs and Court has au Supreme plenary Our did the appeal judg not extend the time to 5, 9, Art. of the Idaho Con thority under § ment, the time when the Platts expired had deci upon appeal, any stitution to “review filed their Hence appeal September on 24. However, we courts.” sion of the district dismissed, the to the appeal must be as jurisdiction being as lim appellate view our judgment. cases in which appeals ited to those have was appeal The Platts’ notice of timely promulgated been filed under rules filed within 42 of the court’s order days again Court. We conclude by Supreme the order denying attorney them fees. Such an jurisdiction that we lack to consider the is appealable, juris and this court does have insofar as it relates to the appeal Platts’ diction to consider the as it relates to appeal 19,1980. petition June The judgment filed the denying attorney order fees. I.A.R. rehearing for is denied. However, 11(a)(5). the district judge as noted, correctly the were entitled to Platts

an attorney only award of fees in this case they

if could show entitlement under I.C. No applicable. 12-121. other statute was

§ 54(e)(1)

Rule of the Idaho Rules of Civil right

Procedure further limits their to re

cover fees. The rule an award of prohibits prevailing party,

fees to the under I.C. 12-121, unless it is shown that “the case

§ pursued frivolously,

was ... brought [or] ” or without foundation.... unreasonably judge

The district stated that such a find-