Idaho Code § 12-120

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods.

Christensen v. Ransom · filed 1992-08-20(3)

The relevant statute in deciding this issue is I.C. § 12-120(3) which states in pertinent part: ... In any civil action to recover on [a] ... contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods, ... unless otherwise provided by law, the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in an action to recover on a contract for the sale of goods.

Beal v. Griffin · filed 1993-03-09(3)

This code section provides that in an action to recover on a contract for the sale of goods the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court. Because we find the court’s findings and conclusions to be proper, we affirm the court’s award. Beal also requests costs and attorney fees on appeal. Because he has prevailed, he is entitled to such an award.

Section 12-120(3) mandates attorney fees in civil actions on contracts for the purchase or sale of services, including employment contracts.

Atwood v. Western Construction Inc. · filed 1996-06-25(3)

In view of the Hunt decision, we conclude that actions on employment contracts are subject to the attorney fee provisions of I.C. § 12-120(3). Consequently, Western should be granted attorney fees it incurred in successfully defending against Atwood’s claims for breach of express and implied contract terms, including the claim for violation of the implied covenant of good faith.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees for a prevailing party in a commercial transaction or a contract action relating to the purchase or sale of goods, with entitlement determined after the party prevails.

JR Simplot Co. v. Enviro Clear Co., Inc. · filed 1998-11-24(3)

Attorney fees are recoverable by a prevailing party in an action based upon a “commercial transaction” and in a “contract [action] relating to the purchase or sale of goods____” I.C. § 12-120(3). The fact that we have vacated the judgment based on the directed verdict and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial does not entitle Simplot to an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3). Whether Simplot prevails in a new trial will determine their entitlement to attorney fees under this statute.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action on a contract involving a commercial transaction when that transaction is the gravamen of the lawsuit.

Continental Casualty Co. v. Brady · filed 1995-12-05(3)

The term “commercial transaction” is defined in § 12-120(3) to mean “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” Thus, by the plain terms of the statute, “[w]here a party alleges the existence of a contractual relationship of a type embraced by section 12-120(3), ... that claim triggers the application of the statute.” ... However, there must be a nexus between the commercial transaction and the lawsuit: ... In this case, there is no question that a “commercial transaction” as defined in § 12-120(3) is involved. Brady and CNA entered into an insurance contract that was not “for personal or household purposes.” ... The issue is whether that commercial transaction was the gravamen of CNA’s lawsuit. We conclude that it was.

Section 12-120(3) generally requires attorney fees in contract actions for the prevailing party at trial and on appeal.

Tyler v. Keeney · filed 1996-04-25(3)

When the action is on a contract, I.C. § 12-120(3) generally mandates an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party on appeal as well as at trial. ... We deem Kee-ney to be the prevailing party in this appeal and, accordingly, award costs and attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in an action to recover a debt arising from a contract for the sale or purchase of goods.

Robertson Supply, Inc. v. Nicholls · filed 1998-01-22(3)

This section makes an award of attorney fees mandatory in an action like the one before us, where Robertson Supply has brought suit in an attempt to recover a debt incurred on a contract relating to the sale and purchase of goods. Thus, the prevailing party should be awarded attorney fees.

Section 12-120(3) allows a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees when the action alleges a qualifying contractual relationship, even if no contract liability is established, including fees incurred on appeal.

Intermountain Forest Management, Inc. v. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP. · filed 2001-08-31(3)

In addition, because I.C. § 12-120(3) applies to attorney fees incurred on appeal as well as at trial, we also award to L-P reasonable attorney fees on appeal.

Subsection (3) authorizes attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a contract relating to the purchase and sale of goods.

Jen-Rath Co. v. Kit Manufacturing Co. · filed 2002-06-03(3)

Jen-Rath seeks attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3), which authorizes an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in any civil action to recover on a “contract relating to the purchase and sale of goods.” Because Jen-Rath is the prevailing party on appeal and because this action is one to recover on a contract relating to the purchase and sale of goods, Jen-Rath is awarded attorney fees on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) permits the prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees in a civil appeal involving a contract for services when a party alleges a covered contractual relationship, even if no contractual liability is established.

Huyett v. Idaho State University · filed 2004-12-07(3)

Idaho Code 12-120(3) allows for the reasonable award of attorney fees to the prevailing party of a civil appeal involving a contract for services. I.C. § 12 — 120(3)(2004). Where a party alleges the existence of a contractual relationship of a type embraced by I.C. § 12-120(3), that claim triggers the application of the statute, and the prevailing party may recover fees even though no liability under a contract was established.

Section 12-120(3) permits the prevailing party in a qualifying commercial contract dispute to recover attorney fees, with the trial court safeguarding the award's reasonableness.

Griffith v. CLEAR LAKES TROUT CO., INC. · filed 2009-01-27(3)

Although I.C. § 12-120(3) produces a harsh result by burdening the losing party with the attorney fees awarded to the other side, the trial court acts as a safeguard to ensure that the fee amount is reasonable.

Section 12-120(3) requires the prevailing party to receive attorney fees in civil actions based on a contract for services or a commercial transaction, even if liability under the alleged contract is not established.

Johnson v. McPhee · filed 2009-04-08(3)

That statute mandates an award of fees to the prevailing party in civil actions that are based on, among other things, a-contract for services or a commercial transaction. ... When a party has alleged the existence of a contract of the type encompassed in this statute, the prevailing party is entitled to recover fees even though no liability under the alleged contract was established.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods, wares, merchandise, or services.

Capps v. Fia Card Services, N.A. · filed 2010-10-04(3)

The applicable portion of the statute provides, “In any civil action to recover on . . . [a] contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods, wares, merchandise, or services . . ., the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney‟s fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs.”

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees in an action for breach of an employment contract because the action is a commercial transaction.

Mackay v. Four Rivers Packing Co. · filed 2011-07-28(3)

“Actions brought for breach of an employment contract are considered commercial transactions and are subject to the attorney fee provision of I.C. § 12-120(3).” Willie v. Bd. of Trustees, 138 Idaho 131, 136, 59 P.3d 302, 307 (2002) (citing Northwest Bec-Corp. v. Home Living Serv., 136 Idaho 835, 842, 4 P.3d 263, 270 (2002)). Mackay has prevailed as to all matters on appeal and is therefore entitled to an award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits an award of attorney fees in an action involving breach of contract in a commercial transaction.

Kugler v. Nelson · filed 2012-06-22(3)

Attorney fees may be awarded under I.C. § 12-120(3) in an action involving breach of contract in a commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) requires attorney fees on appeal and at trial for the prevailing party in disputes involving contracts for services.

Thomas v. Medical Center Physicians, P.A. · filed 2002-12-27(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) provides for mandatory attorney fees on appeal and at trial to the prevailing party in disputes involving contracts for services. The present case involves a dispute relating to an employment relationship, which is inherently contractual in nature. In addition, most of Thomas’ claims sounded in contract. However, because we remand for further proceedings, neither party is the prevailing party and the issue of fees is remanded for consideration at the conclusion of the case.

Section 12-120(3) permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees in actions on contracts or commercial transactions, but neither party may claim those fees when the transaction is illegal.

Barry v. Pacific West Construction, Inc. · filed 2004-12-01(3)

Both Quality and Pac-West seek attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3), which permits the “prevailing party” to recover its reasonable attorney fees in actions on contracts or “commercial transactions.” ... However, this Court in Trees stated that, where the alleged contract or commercial transaction is illegal, “neither party should be permitted to claim the benefit of I.C. § 12-120(3).”

Section 12-120(3) makes attorney fees mandatory in qualifying cases, and that mandate applies both in the trial court and on appeal.

Corliss v. Wenner · filed 2001-09-05(3)

The mandatory attorney fees provision of I.C. § 12-120(3) governs on appeal as well as in the trial court.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes a prevailing party's reasonable attorney-fee award in a commercial civil action, and applying the provision to an action commenced after its 1986 effective date is not retroactive.

Griggs v. Nash · filed 1989-05-24(3)

We hold that I.C. § 12-120(3) was correctly applied by the trial court to the claims contained in the third-party complaint. The action by EMSI and Van Gelder was commenced in September 1987, not in January 1987, as is the trial court held. It was not a retroactive application for the trial court to award attorney fees to Trout pursuant to a statute that became effective in 1986.

Section 12-120(3) permits prevailing-party attorney fees only when the action concerns a commercial transaction, and a water-rights action that concerns no transaction does not qualify.

Durrant v. Christensen · filed 1990-01-17(3)

In certain civil actions, I.C. § 12-120 provides for an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party, and subsection (3) allows an award of fees “in any commercial transaction.” ... This legal action did not pertain to a transaction, commercial or otherwise, and we affirm the district court’s denial of costs and fees claimed under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees only in an action involving recovery on the specified commercial obligations or, at most, a dispute arising from a commercial transaction between the parties; it does not apply to a mandamus action based on a statutory public duty merely because future commercial transactions might result.

Idaho Newspaper Foundation v. City of Cascade · filed 1990-03-02(3)

However, we need not decide today whether the City and School District are right in suggesting that this gap signifies a new category of commercial cases covered by the statute regardless of whether suit has been brought “to recover on” a contract. For even if such a hypothesis were true, it would not support a conclusion that the statute extends to all lawsuits where a commercial relationship exists. Under the most expansive view of the statute, a lawsuit still must seek resolution of a dispute arising from a commercial transaction between the parties. ... Here, there was no such commercial transaction between the City or School District, on one hand, and the Foundation or the “Star News” on the other, when the suit was filed. Indeed, the purpose of the suit was to compel performance of a perceived public duty in order to create a possibility of future commercial transactions benefitting the “Star News.” We think there is a clear distinction between litigation of a dispute arising from a commercial transaction and litigation on noncommercial issues that might have future commercial ramifications. ... Therefore, we conclude that I.C. § 12-120(3) has been applied improperly to this case.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney’s fees in a civil action involving a commercial transaction only when the transaction is integral to the claim and forms the basis of the recovery.

Brower v. EI DuPont De Nemours and Co. · filed 1990-05-24(3)

These cases lead to the conclusion that the award of attorney’s fees is not warranted every time a commercial transaction is remotely connected with the case. Rather, the test is whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit. Attorney’s fees are not appropriate under I.C. § 12-120(3) unless the commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. To hold otherwise would be to convert the award of attorney’s fees from an exceptional remedy justified only by statutory authority to a matter of right in virtually every lawsuit filed.

For an action filed after the 1986 amendment, § 12-120(3)'s commercial-transaction attorney-fee provision applies even if the cause of action arose before the amendment.

Ramco v. H-K Contractors, Inc. · filed 1990-06-15(3)

We also hold that the district court improperly denied Rameo attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3). Although the 1986 amendment is not subject to retroactive application, Myers v. Vermaas, the proper focus is upon the time of filing, not the time the cause of action arose. Griggs v. Nash, 116 Idaho 228, 775 P.2d 120 (1989). This action was filed on February 27, 1987. Therefore, the 1986 amendment to I.C. § 12-120 would be applicable to this case.

Section 12-120 may support an attorney-fee award for a commercial transaction, but a default does not automatically entitle the claimant to the amount pleaded; the award must still comply with Rule 54(e)'s affidavit and fee-factor requirements.

Nickels v. Durbano · filed 1990-07-19

Presumably, the award of fees was made under I.C. § 12-120. The court found that the underlying transaction between the parties was a “commercial transaction,” but it is unclear whether this was the sole basis for the award. When awarding fees under I.C. § 12-120, a court is not required to make written findings. See I.R.C.P. 54(e)(2). However, I.R.C.P. 54(e)(4) states in part: “Any award of attorney fees in default judgments shall be subject to the other provisions of this Rule 54(e), and shall not exceed the amount prayed for in the complaint.” One of the “other provisions,” found in Rule 54(e)(3) requires the court to consider eleven specific factors “in determining the amount of such fees: ____” We interpret this rule to mean that there is no automatic entitlement to the specific amount of attorney fees claimed in a complaint simply because the defendant has defaulted. Rule 54(e)(5) provides that a “claim for attorney fees as costs shall be supported by an affidavit of the attorney stating the basis and method of computation of the attorney fees claimed.” The record on appeal contains no affidavit in support of the claimed fees. The minutes of the ex parte hearing contain no reference to the claim for attorney fees. Finally, the court’s findings and conclusions do not indicate that the court considered the enumerated factors of Rule 54(e)(3). Accordingly, we believe that fees, as well as damages, should be redetermined on remand.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees under its 1986 commercial-transaction language for an action filed before that amendment, and its pre-1986 goods-contract language does not cover a transaction that was not a sale of goods.

Clements Farms, Inc. v. Ben Fish & Son · filed 1990-12-18(3)

The court predicated this award upon a provision in I.C. § 12-120(3) which mandates a grant of attorney fees to the prevailing party in “any civil action ... [on] any commercial transaction____” The reference to a “commercial transaction” was added to I.C. § 12-120 on July 1, 1986. We have held, in Myers v. Vermaas, 114 Idaho 85, 753 P.2d 296 (Ct.App.1988), that the 1986 version of the statute may not be applied to a case filed prior to the effective date of the amendment. This case was filed in March, 1986. Consequently, the 1986 version of the statute should not have been applied. ... Moreover, we do not think the case falls within the pre-1986 version of I.C. § 12-120. Although that version refers to “any civil action to recover on ... [a] contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods,” this case — strictly speaking — did not involve a “sale of goods.”

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in an action arising from a commercial transaction, including an appeal on which that party prevails even if the overall case remains unresolved.

Bowen v. Heth · filed 1991-08-02(3)

The subject matter of this lawsuit falls under the definition of a “commercial transaction” as defined by I.C. § 12-120(3) and as shown by the contract between the parties. This action was brought upon the contract to enforce one party’s rights under the contract. Accordingly, the statute mandates that “the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs.” I.C. § 12-120(3); I.A.R. 40, 41. ... Accordingly, we hold they are entitled to an award of fees for this appeal even though Heth may ultimately be found to be the prevailing party after trial on his counterclaim.

Section 12-120(3) permits the prevailing party in a civil action arising from a commercial transaction to recover reasonable attorney fees.

In Re Bybee · filed 1991-09-27(3)

We conclude that under Holiday Mobile Home Resorts and Sparkman, Idaho Code § 12-120(3) permits A-Mark to recover its reasonable attorney fees as to counts three through six.

Section 12-120(3) allows a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees when a commercial transaction is integral to the claim and forms the basis of recovery.

Freiberger v. American Triticale, Inc. · filed 1991-07-29(3)

The subject matter of this lawsuit falls under the definition of a “commercial transaction” as defined by I.C. § 12-120(3) and as defined further by our case law. The original action related to the purchase of grain, and was an effort to recover on a “contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods ...” thereby meeting the test set out above. ATI’s other claims were also based on conduct allegedly occurring during contractual and commercial transactions between it and Simplot. Simplot is the prevailing party, and is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney fees.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction, including a transaction for the purchase of services, unless otherwise provided by law.

Perkins v. Highland Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1991-08-22(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120 dictates when attorney fees will be allowed in civil actions. The pertinent part states: ... (3) In any civil action to recover on an open account, account stated, note, bill, negotiable instrument, guaranty or contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods, wares, merchandise, or services and in any commercial transaction unless otherwise provided by law, the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs. ... The subject matter of this action is a transaction between two commercial enterprises relating to the purchase of services as provided in the statute. Perkins has successfully defended the jury verdict in his favor. Therefore, Perkins is the prevailing party and attorney fees are awarded pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) allows the prevailing party attorney fees when a contract is for services and arises from a commercial transaction.

Cuddy Mountain Concrete, Inc. v. Citadel Construction, Inc. · filed 1992-01-02(3)

The contract between Citadel and Cuddy Mountain was a contract for the sale of services in that Citadel hired Cuddy Mountain to perform the work of pouring concrete at the Shopko building project. It was also a commercial transaction because it encompassed an agreement between two professional construction companies in a business context. Cuddy Mountain is clearly the prevailing party in this appeal. Consequently, we award costs and attorney fees to Cuddy Mountain.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees in a declaratory action when no integral commercial transaction is the gravamen of the lawsuit.

Edwards v. Edwards · filed 1992-10-01(3)

Our analysis centers on the construction and application of I.C. § 12-120(3). ... In this case, we conclude that neither party was attempting to recover against the other on the basis of any “integral” commercial transaction — such a transaction simply was not the “gravamen of the lawsuit.” ... For reasons different from those given by the district judge, we conclude that an award of attorney fees in this case was not authorized under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees only when the dispute arises from a commercial transaction between the parties and that transaction is integral to the claim.

Idaho Branch, Inc. of Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. v. Nampa Highway District No. 1 · filed 1993-02-03(3)

The pertinent part of I.C. § 12-120(3) provides that “in any commercial transaction unless otherwise provided by law, the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs.” The districts contend, therefore, that the language, “any commercial transaction,” encompasses the contractor’s challenge to the financing agreement for the rock crusher and entitles them to an attorney fee award. We disagree.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees to the prevailing party in qualifying commercial transactions, but not when the action is based on a competitive-bidding statute rather than a contractual relationship.

Scott v. Buhl Joint School District No. 412 · filed 1993-05-19(3)

The Scotts are not involved in any contractual relationship with either Buhl or Mayflower; they are not seeking relief upon the basis of a contract, but instead upon the basis of a competitive bidding statute. This case does not revolve around a commercial transaction at all. Therefore, we hold that Buhl and Mayflower are not entitled to attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party in a commercial transaction when that transaction is integral to and forms the basis of the claim.

Ervin Construction Co. v. Van Orden · filed 1993-08-25(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) requires the award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party of a “commercial transaction.” However, a court is not required to award reasonable attorney fees every time a commercial transaction is connected with a ease. ... The critical test is whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit; the commercial transaction must be integral to the claim and constitute the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees to the prevailing party in a commercial transaction, but collecting a regulatory fee for services is not a commercial transaction.

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Idaho Public Utilities ComMission · filed 1994-03-16(3)

I.C. § 12-120(3) does not form a basis for an award of attorney fees. I.C. § 12-120(3) allows for an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a “commercial transaction.” “Commercial transaction” is defined by the statute as all transactions except those for personal or household purposes. I.C. § 12-120(3). While the parties’ activities here may be characterized as “commercial” as opposed to personal or household, there is nothing in their dealings which may properly be characterized as a transaction. This was simply the act of a legislative agency collecting a fee for services, enabling the fee payor to conduct its business. Although the activity may have resulted in some commercial impact on the motor carriers, this circumstance would not bring it within the meaning of “commercial transaction” as used in I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney-fee awards to prevailing parties in civil actions based on commercial transactions.

Cannon Builders, Inc. v. Rice · filed 1995-01-19(3)

All three parties involved have requested an award of attorney fees on this appeal. Idaho Code § 12-120(3) authorizes an award of fees to prevailing parties in a civil action based on a commercial transaction. The transaction between Cannon and Rice clearly falls within the definition of commercial transaction found in § 12-120(3). Therefore, Cannon is entitled to an award of costs and attorney fees on this appeal against Rice. With respect to Crooks, we conclude that the nature of the suit, which includes a claim that Crooks was entitled to enforce the Rice-Cannon contract as a third party beneficiary, was sufficiently based on a commercial transaction to warrant an award of fees under § 12-120(3). Therefore, we award costs and attorney fees to Rice against Crooks. The award to Rice, however, is limited to those costs and attorney fees expended by Rice on the issues and claims relating to Crooks and shall not include any costs or fees allocable to Rice’s unsuccessful challenge to the Cannon judgment.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees in qualifying contracts for goods or services and commercial transactions, but a commercial transaction must be integral to, and comprise the gravamen of, the lawsuit to support a fee award.

Spence v. Howell · filed 1995-02-01(3)

The Spences argue they are entitled to attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) because this is a case involving a contract and a commercial transaction. That section allows for attorney fees “[i]n any civil action to recover on ... [a] contract relating to the purchase or sale of goods, wares, merchandise, or services and in any commercial transaction____” This case very clearly does not involve a contract for the sale of goods or services and thus that part of the statute is inapplicable. As to the provision allowing attorney fees in a commercial transaction, the statute defines a commercial transaction as all transactions except transactions for personal and household purposes. We have said that the test is whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit, that is, whether the commercial transaction is integral to the claim and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. ... This cause of action was not the gravamen of their case and the district court did not err in refusing to award fees in what was primarily a fraud case.

Section 12-120(3) allows a prevailing party to recover attorney fees when the action alleges a qualifying contractual relationship or seeks recovery in a commercial transaction, even if the contract or transaction is not ultimately proven.

Magic Lantern Productions, Inc. v. Dolsot · filed 1995-03-07(3)

Where a party alleges the existence of a contractual relationship of a type embraced by section 12-120(3) ... that claim triggers the application of [I.C. § 12-120(3) ] and a prevailing party may recover fees even though no liability under a contract was established. ... This same principle applies where the action is one to recover in a commercial transaction, regardless of the proof that the commercial transaction alleged did, in fact, occur.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a commercial transaction, with the amount determined within the trial court’s discretion.

Pocatello Auto Color, Inc. v. Akzo Coatings, Inc. · filed 1995-05-15(3)

The calculation of reasonable attorney fees is within the discretion of the trial court. ... I.R.C.P. 54(e)(3) states the factors the trial court is to consider in determining the amount of attorney fees, which the trial court in this case indicated it had considered. The trial court indicated it understood this was a discretionary decision, acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistent with the proper legal standards, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Therefore, it did not abuse its discretion.

Section 12-120(3) treats a lease used to operate a commercial cattle ranch as a commercial transaction and entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees for claims arising from the lease.

Herrick v. Leuzinger · filed 1995-06-09(3)

The term “commercial transaction” is defined by the statute to mean “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” I.C. § 12-120(3). ... The lease in question allowed Judi and Doyle Leuzinger to utilize the Broken Wing Ranch for the purpose of operating a commercial cattle ranch. They did not maintain a home on the ranch property. Therefore, the lease was a commercial transaction, and the Leuzingers were entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Upon remand the district court shall award to the Leuzingers the reasonable amount of fees incurred for that portion of this case relating to alleged breaches of the lease.

Section 12-120(3) allows attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a commercial transaction, judged by whether the commercial transaction is the gravamen of the lawsuit.

Gumprecht v. Doyle · filed 1995-08-08(3)

I.C. § 12-120(3) provides for an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on any commercial transaction. I.C. § 12-120(3); Property Management West, Inc. v. Hunt, 126 Idaho 897, 900, 894 P.2d 130, 133 (1995). “Commercial transactions,” as defined by I.C. § 12-120(3), includes all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes. Id. The test of whether attorney fees are appropriate under I.C. § 12-120(3) is whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit. Spence v. Howell, 126 Idaho 763, 775-76, 890 P.2d 714, 726-27 (1995); Brower v. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 117 Idaho 780, 784, 792 P.2d 345, 349 (1990). Gumpreeht’s claim is based on the statutory penalties provided in I.C. § 30-1-52 for the corporation’s failure to provide access to the corporate records. The claim is not based on a contract. The gravamen of Gum-precht’s suit is the statutory provision and not a commercial transaction. Thus the district court properly denied VENT attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires a prevailing party to receive reasonable attorney fees when the lawsuit is based on a commercial transaction integral to the claim and forming the basis for recovery.

Kelly v. Silverwood Estates · filed 1995-09-28(3)

An award of attorney fees is not warranted every time a commercial transaction is remotely connected with a case. Rather, the test is whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit. Attorney fees are not appropriate under I.C. § 12-120(3) unless the commercial transaction is integral to the claim and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. ... The gravamen of this case was an effort to enforce a statutory scheme of dissolution. The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a qualifying civil action.

Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. of New York v. Cazier · filed 1995-11-27(3)

We grant Keycorp’s request for attorneys fees under I.C. § 12-120(3), on the basis of the language in the deed of trust providing for attorneys fees in any action purporting to affect the security of the deed of trust or the rights of the beneficiary.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees when the transaction at issue does not fall within any transaction enumerated in the statute.

Haley v. Clinton · filed 1996-01-12(3)

Clinton seeks an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code Sections 12-120(3) and 12-121. An award under I.C. § 12-120(3) is not appropriate as the transaction in question does not fall within any of those enumerated in that section.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a contract involving a commercial transaction when that transaction is the lawsuit's gravamen.

Ward v. Puregro Co. · filed 1996-03-22(3)

I.C. § 12-120(3) provides that in any civil action to recover on a contract relating to a “commercial transaction,” the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee if the commercial transaction is the gravamen of the lawsuit. ... The term “commercial transaction” is defined in § 12-120(3) to mean “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” ... Since Ward brought this action claiming a breach of that contract, a “commercial transaction” was the gravamen of this lawsuit. Thus, Ward is entitled to an award of attorney fees incurred on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees only when a commercial transaction is the gravamen of the lawsuit—integral to the claim and the basis on which the party seeks recovery.

Jahnke v. Mesa Equipment, Inc. · filed 1996-05-14(3)

The test is whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit. Attorney’s fees are not appropriate under I.C. § 12-120(3) unless the commercial transaction is integral to the claim and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. ... Although it is true that Healy agreed to buy the tractor at a foreclosure sale, the action underlying the request for fees did not derive from a transaction between Jahnke and Healy, but was one asserting conversion and claim and delivery. These claims are in tort and, therefore, not a proper vehicle for the award of fees made by the district court.

Section 12-120(3) generally permits prevailing-party attorney fees in contract actions involving a commercial transaction, but it does not apply to insured-insurer disputes arising under insurance policies because Idaho Code § 41-1839(4) is the exclusive statutory fee remedy.

Union Warehouse & Supply Co. v. Illinois R.B. Jones, Inc. · filed 1996-06-05(3)

The district court also awarded attorney fees to Union pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3). This provision provides that in any civil action to recover on a contract relating to a “commercial transaction,” the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee if the commercial transaction is the gravamen of the lawsuit. ... However, on March 20, 1996, I.C. § 41-1839 was amended to included subsection (4), which provides: ... (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, this section shall provide the exclusive remedy for the award of statutory attorney’s fees in all actions between insureds and insurers involving disputes arising under policies of insurance. Section 12-120, Idaho Code, shall not apply to any actions between insureds and insurers involving disputes arising under any policy of insurance. ... In this case, the legislature has expressly stated its intent that “[t]his act shall apply to all cases pending at the time of its passage and approval.” H.R. 713, 1996 S.L., ch. 385. For this reason, we reverse the district court’s award of attorney fees under § 12-120(3), and deny Union’s request for attorney fees on appeal under that provision.

Section 12-120(3) allows attorney fees when a commercial transaction is integral to the claim and forms the basis for recovery; negligent performance of an operative commercial contract can satisfy that requirement.

Powell v. Sellers · filed 1997-05-05(3)

On a claim for attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3), the district court is to determine “whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit, that is, whether the commercial transaction is integral to the claim and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.” ... This case is distinguishable from Brooks because the stipulation between the parties was still in effect and was the gravamen of the lawsuit. The district court properly awarded fees on the statutory basis of I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in an action arising from a commercial transaction, including on appeal.

J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics International, Inc. · filed 1997-05-29(3)

Section 12-120(3) of the Idaho Code requires that the court hearing any action arising out of a commercial transaction shall award a reasonable attorney fee to the prevailing party. The phrase “commercial transaction” is defined in the code as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” This Court has interpreted I.C. § 12-120(3), to mandate the award of attorney fees on appeal as well as at trial.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees on appeal for a party who successfully defends a contract action whose gravamen is a commercial transaction, even when the contract is held unenforceable.

Lawrence v. Jones · filed 1993-11-17(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) may be asserted on appeal even though it was not raised at the district court level. It is well-settled in Idaho that one who successfully defends against the enforcement of a contract, when the gravamen of the transaction is a commercial transaction, nevertheless may be entitled to attorney fees even though the court has ruled that no contract exists or it is unenforceable. ... This appeal was based on a contract action and under § 12-120(3) we award attorney fees to Jones.

Under § 12-120(3), a commercial transaction must be integral to the claim and provide the basis for recovery; a conversion claim does not support attorney fees merely because it arose from a commercial transaction.

Brooks v. Gigray Ranches, Inc. · filed 1996-01-29(3)

The fact that the conversion claim arose out of a commercial transaction is not sufficient to apply I.C. § 12-120(3): “the commercial transaction must be integral to the claim and constitute the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.” ... The basis of the Gigray Ranches’ claim was the tort of conversion. The district court properly denied Gigray Ranches’ claim for attorney fees.

Section 12-120(3) requires attorney fees for the prevailing party in civil actions based on commercial transactions, including enforcement of an option to purchase commercial farming property, and applies to fees incurred on appeal.

Dennett v. Kuenzli · filed 1997-03-10(3)

That statute mandates an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in any civil action to recover on “any commercial transaction.” “Commercial transaction” is defined as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” ... The test for application of this statutory directive is “whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit, that is, whether the commercial transaction is integral to the claim and constitutes the basis upon which , the party is attempting to recover.” ... Here, the gravamen of the plaintiffs claim has been the enforcement of an option to purchase commercial farming property. The action also included the Kuenzlis’ counterclaim alleging a right to damages for breach of the option contract and breach of the March 1984 contract for the sale of the same property. The district court was, therefore, correct in holding that a commercial transaction was the basis of the lawsuit and in granting attorney fees to Dennett. ... Because I.C. § 12-120(3) applies to attorney fees incurred on appeal as well as at trial, ...

A commercial transaction must be both integral to the claim and the basis on which recovery is sought for attorney fees to be awarded.

Andrea v. City of Coeur D'Alene · filed 1998-12-07(3)

In order for attorney fees to be awarded under Idaho Code § 12-120(3), a commercial transaction must be both integral to the claim and the basis upon which recovery is sought.

Under § 12-120(3), a quiet-title action whose claims are not a commercial transaction does not support an attorney-fee award.

Treasure Valley Concrete, Inc. v. State · filed 1999-04-30(3)

The basis for the claims in this case cannot in any way be characterized as a commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees only for commercial transactions, and a lease-option involving the lease and purchase of a dwelling for residential purposes is not commercial.

Karterman v. Jameson · filed 1999-05-07(3)

However, a party may only recover attorney fees in a property transaction pursuant to subsection (3) if the transaction is commercial. A commercial transaction is defined as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” I.C. § 12-120(3). A transaction involving the sale and purchase of personal residential property is not a “commercial transaction” within the meaning of the statute.

Section 12-120(3) applies to an action seeking recovery under an alleged commercial contract, even if the alleged contract is disputed, and permits the prevailing party to recover attorney fees.

General Auto Parts Co. v. Genuine Parts Co. · filed 1999-06-17(3)

Section 12-120(3) provides for an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover in any commercial transaction. Section 12-120(3) defines “commercial transaction” to mean “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” General initiated the underlying action to recover on an alleged contract whereby the parties agreed that General would have the exclusive right to be the only seller of NAPA auto parts in Boise. Consequently, the underlying action involves a commercial transaction contemplated in § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) allows the prevailing party to recover a reasonable attorney fee in a civil action based on a commercial transaction.

Corder v. Idaho Farmway, Inc. · filed 1999-07-16(3)

Generally, the prevailing party is allowed to recover a reasonable attorney fee in a civil action based on a commercial transaction. I.C. § 12-120(3). Thus, Corder, who is the prevailing party on the breach of contract claim, is awarded reasonable attorney fees on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) requires an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in a dispute over an amount due under a commercial transaction.

Lickley v. Max Herbold, Inc. · filed 1999-07-21(3)

This case involves a dispute over an amount due under a commercial transaction. Consequently, an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party, both below and on appeal, is mandatory under both I.C. § 12-120(3) and the express provisions of paragraph O in the contract.

Section 12-120(3) applies when a commercial transaction is integral to and forms the basis of the claim, and permits the prevailing party to recover attorney fees.

Rule Sales & Service, Inc. v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n · filed 1999-11-02(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) provides that the prevailing party in an action based upon “any commercial transaction” is entitled to recover attorney fees. The statute defines “commercial transaction” as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” The test for the application of this section is “whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit, that is, whether the commercial transaction is integral to the claim and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.” ... Both the original loan and the alleged oral agreement are • commercial transactions within the statutory definition. Accordingly, the party who prevails on remand will be entitled to attorney fees under § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits reasonable attorney fees in a civil action arising from a commercial transaction to be awarded to the prevailing party, with appellate fees considered when the ultimate prevailing party is determined.

Quinto v. Millwood Forest Products, Inc. · filed 1997-04-03(3)

Quinto requests an award of attorney fees incurred on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3). That statute provides that the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorney fees incurred in a civil action arising from a commercial transaction. Because we are remanding the case for a new trial, it has not yet been determined whether Quinto will be the ultimate prevailing party in this litigation. Therefore, we do not award attorney *169fees but hold that attorney fees incurred for this appeal may be taken into account by the trial court in determining the amount of fees which ultimately should be awarded to the prevailing party at the conclusion of the litigation.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize an attorney-fee award to a prevailing party based on a commercial transaction that was knowingly entered into in direct contravention of a municipal criminal ordinance.

Kunz v. Lobo Lodge, Inc. · filed 1999-11-23(3)

We conclude that the district court erred in awarding attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) to Lobo Lodge as the prevailing party because the leases were entered into knowingly and in direct contravention of a municipal criminal ordinance.

Section 12-120 did not provide a basis for an award of attorney fees on this appeal.

Weaver v. Stafford · filed 2000-07-14

Owyhee Village requests attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120, I.C. § 12-121 and I.A.R. 41. We find no basis for an award of fees under I.C. § 12-120.

Section 12-120(3) allows a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees on appeal when the party's request adequately identifies that subsection, even without expressly citing it.

Clark v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH & WELFARE · filed 2000-07-21(3)

The State, on the other hand, claims attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120. While the State has failed to cite to any subsection of I.C. § 12-120, it did cite the case of Atwood v. Western Construction, Inc., 129 Idaho 234, 923 P.2d 479 (Ct.App.1996). Since the award of attorney fees in Atwood was granted under I.C. § 12-120(3), this Court holds that the State made an adequate request for attorney fees under that subsection. Therefore, since the State is the prevailing party in this appeal, we award the State reasonable attorney fees on appeal.

Section 12-120 authorizes attorney-fee awards to prevailing parties, with the amount committed to the trial court’s discretion.

Simons v. Simons · filed 2000-08-01

Idaho Code § 12-120 provides that attorney fees are awarded to prevailing parties. ... The amount of attorney fees to be awarded under I.C. § 12-120 is committed to the trial court’s discretion.

Section 12-120(3) allows attorney fees for a civil action involving a commercial transaction, but a dispute primarily concerning property ownership and easement rights does not qualify.

Baxter v. Craney · filed 2000-12-15(3)

Idaho Code section 12-120(3) provides that attorney fees may be recovered by the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on “any commercial transaction.” ... Like the above cases, this action is primarily a dispute over property ownership and easement rights and as such does not fall within the meaning of a commercial transaction as defined in I.C. § 12-120(3) and as applied by the courts.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees only when the commercial transaction is integral to the claim and the claimant is a prevailing party.

City of Kellogg v. Mission Mountain Interests Ltd., Co. · filed 2000-12-19(3)

Attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) are not appropriate unless the commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. ... Furthermore, recovery of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) is limited to prevailing parties. ... We have upheld the district court’s decision; therefore, Mission is not the prevailing party in this proceeding and is not entitled to attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) authorizes an award of attorney fees on appeal to the prevailing party in a civil action relating to a commercial transaction.

Hoffer v. Callister · filed 2002-05-06(3)

Idaho Code section 12-120(3) provides for an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action relating to any commercial transaction. Because Callister and Stewart are a prevailing party, and because this case centers on commercial transactions, as Hoffer concedes on appeal, Callister and Stewart are entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal. ... However, we hold that Wilson is entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney fee for the prevailing party in qualifying contract or commercial-transaction actions, including actions on employment contracts.

Pinnacle Performance, Inc. v. Hessing · filed 2001-01-12(3)

If a contract claim is of a type embraced within the statute, the proponent’s failure to prove the existence of the alleged contract does not insulate that party from liability. Atwood v. Western Const., Inc., 129 Idaho 234, 240, 923 P.2d 479, 485 (Ct.App.1996). Therefore, attorney fees are allowed when the defendant has been successful in defeating such a contract claim. Atwood, 129 Idaho at 241, 923 P.2d at 485. This Court has previously held that actions on employment contracts are subject to the attorney fee provisions of I.C. § 12-120(3). See id.

Section 12-120(3) requires attorney fees for the prevailing party in qualifying commercial-contract actions, and its mandatory fee provision applies on appeal when the appeal concerns entitlement to fees awarded below.

Sainsbury Const. Co., Inc. v. Quinn · filed 2002-04-08(3)

Idaho Code Section § 12-120(3) provides that a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party in any civil action to recover on a contract for services “and in any commercial transaction____” ... The mandatory attorney fee provisions of I.C. § 12-120 govern on appeal as in the trial court. ... This Court has held that the statute applies if the appeal is concerned with the entitlement to an award below. ... We deem the issue presented here to be one of entitlement, and SCC has prevailed on appeal. Accordingly, SCC is awarded reasonable attorney fees to be determined pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 41.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees when the gravamen of the lawsuit is a commercial transaction.

Primary Health Network, Inc. v. State, Department of Administration · filed 2002-06-07(3)

Idaho Code, Section 12-120(3) requires the gravamen of the lawsuit to be a commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees only when a commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit; a real-property ownership dispute does not qualify.

Cox v. Clanton · filed 2002-07-02(3)

An award under I.C. § 12-120(3) is justified only if a “commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit.” ... This case mirrors Sun Valley Hot Springs Ranch, Inc. Therefore, attorney fees on appeal are not awarded to the respondents under § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees when the commercial transaction is illegal and the lawsuit's gravamen is a tort.

Trees v. Kersey · filed 2002-09-12(3)

While both parties’ claims are based upon the commercial relationship between them, neither party should be permitted to claim the benefit of I.C. § 12-120(3). The commercial transaction was illegal. ... Additionally, the award of the district court was based upon the exception to the illegality doctrine for fraud which sounds in tort. The gravamen of this lawsuit is a tort. There is no basis under Idaho Code § 12-120(3) for an award.

Section 12-120(3) permits reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party on a breach-of-employment-contract claim because that claim is a commercial transaction, while separable statutory claims are treated separately.

Willie v. Board of Trustees · filed 2002-11-13(3)

Under I.C. § 12-120(3), the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction based on a contract is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. ... Actions brought for breach of an employment contract are considered commercial transactions and are subject to the attorney fee provision of I.C. § 12-120(3). ... However, attorney fees are unavailable under § 12-120(3) for statutory claims only when the statute upon which the claim is brought includes its own attorney fees provision. ... When various statutory and common law claims are separable, a court should bifurcate the claims and award fees pursuant to § 12-120(3) only on the commercial transaction. ... As a result, the District and Schow are entitled to fees related to defense of Willie’s claim for breach of contract, which constitutes a commercial transaction under I.C. 12-120(3). The District and Schow are not entitled to fees related to Willie’s public policy and Idaho Constitution claims because they are specifically exempted from I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover in a commercial transaction, excluding transactions for personal or household purposes.

Taylor v. Just · filed 2002-11-22(3)

That statute provides, “In any civil action to recover ... in any commercial transaction unless otherwise provided by law, the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs.” The statute defines the term “commercial transaction” to mean “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” IDAHO CODE § 12-120(3) (1998). Both Taylor and the Trustee agree that Taylor’s action against the Trustee was to recover in a commercial transaction. Taylor bid at the foreclosure sale in order to obtain the real property for resale. As the prevailing party on the appeal, the Trustee is entitled to an award of a reasonable attorney fee under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) entitles the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction to reasonable attorney fees, using a two-stage integral-to-claim and actual-basis test.

IRON EAGLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. v. Quality Design Systems, Inc. · filed 2003-02-27(3)

Under I.C. § 12-120(3), the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees. ... First, the commercial transaction must be integral to the claim, and second, the commercial transaction must provide the actual basis for recovery. ... A commercial transaction is the gravamen of this lawsuit. As the prevailing party, Quality Design is entitled to fees related to defense of appellants’ claims for breach of contract and equitable claims, which constitute a commercial transaction under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits prevailing-party attorney fees for claims based on an integral commercial transaction, including on appeal, but not for a separate negligence claim.

J.R. Simplot Co. v. Rycair, Inc. · filed 2003-03-05(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) allows for the recovery of attorney fees by the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on any commercial transaction. The term “commercial transaction,” as defined by I.C. § 12-120(3), includes all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes. This Court has previously held that “ ‘[attorney fees are not appropriate under I.C. § 12-120(3) unless the commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.’ ” ... Both I.C. § 12-120(3) and the lease agreement provide for the award to the prevailing party of attorney fees incurred. In this case, the commercial lease is integral to the contract claims and served as one of the theories upon which Simplot sought to recover. Attorney fees could be properly awarded by the district court under the lease and I.C. § 12-120(3) for claims relating to the lease. However, the lease and I.C. § 12-120(3) do not provide for fees on the claims relating to the negligence cause of action. Therefore, Rycair should not be awarded attorney fees for defending at trial the tort claim concerning negligence.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees against a state agency when Idaho Code § 12-117 provides the exclusive basis for such an award.

Westway Construction, Inc. v. Idaho Transportation Department · filed 2003-07-11(3)

That statute is not applicable. “I.C. § 12-117 provides the exclusive basis upon which to seek an award of attorney fees against a state agency.”

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees when a commercial transaction is integral to the claim and forms the basis of the recovery; a commercial real-property purchase for an elk ranch qualifies.

Garner v. Bartschi · filed 2003-11-14(3)

Attorney’s fees are not appropriate under I.C. § 12-120(3) unless the commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. ... In this case, the agreements were entered into to purchase real property for the purpose of Garner establishing an elk ranch. The underlying transaction appears to be commercial in nature and comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit. ... This Court awards attorney fees on appeal to Bartschi pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3) and the agreements between the parties.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover in a commercial transaction, and a development-fee claim qualifies as such a transaction.

Rockefeller v. Grabow · filed 2003-12-09(3)

Rockefeller seeks attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-120(3), which provides: “In any civil action to recover ... in any commercial transaction unless otherwise provided by law, the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs.” The statute defines the term “commercial transaction” to mean “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” IDAHO CODE § 12-120(3) (1998). Rockefeller’s claim for his development fee was an action to recover in a commercial transaction. As the prevailing party on the appeal, he is entitled to an award of a reasonable attorney fee under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees when a party alleges a qualifying contractual relationship or commercial transaction, even if no contract ultimately existed or liability was not established.

Miller v. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2004-02-06(3)

We have previously held that if a party alleges the existence of a contractual relationship of the type embraced by Idaho Code § 12-120(3), that claim triggers the application of the statute, and the prevailing party is entitled to an award of attorney fees even though no liability under a contract was ultimately established. ... In this case, Dr. Miller’s allegation of a contract between him and the Hospital that was for other than personal or household purposes constituted the allegation of a commercial transaction. Even though we have held that no such contract existed, the Hospital was entitled to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) mandates attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action to recover on a commercial transaction, including on appeal.

Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. v. Heron Brook, LLC. · filed 2004-02-26(3)

Pinnacle requests an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-120(3) on the ground that this is an action to recover on a commercial transaction. In such actions, that statute also mandates the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) mandates attorney fees on appeal for the prevailing party when the gravamen of the lawsuit is a commercial transaction.

Sun Valley Potato Growers, Inc. v. Texas Refinery Corp. · filed 2004-02-26(3)

“This Court has interpreted I.C. § 12-120(3) to mandate the award of attorney fees on appeal as well as at trial.” ... “Under I.C. § 12-120(3), the gravamen of the lawsuit must be a commercial transaction.” ... “Therefore, pursuant to the terms of I.C. § 12-120(3), Texas Refinery is entitled to attorney fees on appeal because it is the prevailing party.”

Section 12-120(3) requires attorney fees for the prevailing party in a qualifying commercial-transaction action, but only when the transaction is integral to the claim and forms the basis of the recovery.

Merrill v. Gibson · filed 2004-02-27(3)

The language of I.C. § 12-120(3) is mandatory and requires a trial court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party. ... Attorney fees are not appropriate under I.C. § 12-120(3) unless the commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. ... We agree. The alleged commercial transaction in this case (leasing the Twenty Acres for operation of a nursery) is not integral to the quiet title claim. The Merrills quiet title action involves the determination of rights to the Twenty Acres; it does not involve the validity or breach of a commercial lease.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees merely because a commercial relationship exists; the commercial transaction must be integral to the claim.

Tolley v. Thi Co. · filed 2004-05-05(3)

This finding is consistent with the precedent which clearly states that a commercial transaction does not arise in every instance in which a commercial relationship exists.

Section 12-120(3) treats all transactions except personal or household transactions as commercial and allows attorney fees when a claim alleges a qualifying commercial contract, even if contract liability is not established.

Lexington Heights Development, LLC v. Crandlemire · filed 2004-05-27(3)

With respect to Mayes, the complaint does not allege any commercial transaction between Lexington Heights and Mayes. It simply alleges that by his conduct Mayes interfered with a commercial transaction between Lexington Heights and the Crandlemires. Therefore, Mayes is not entitled to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(3). ... With respect to the Crandlemires, the complaint does allege a commercial transaction. “The term ‘commercial transaction’ is defined to mean all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” Idaho Code § 12-120(3) (1998). The purpose of the alleged Agreement was for Lexington Heights to acquire the ninety acres to develop it into a subdivision. Therefore, the alleged Agreement was a commercial transaction. ... Where a party alleges the existence of a contract that would be a commercial transaction under Idaho Code § 12-120(3), that claim triggers the application of the statute and the prevailing party may recover attorney fees even if no liability under the contract is established.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees on appeal for a contract action involving a commercial transaction, including when the successful party defended against enforcement of a contract that was ruled nonexistent or unenforceable.

Lawrence v. Jones · filed 1993-11-17(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) may be asserted on appeal even though it was not raised at the district court level. It is well-settled in Idaho that one who successfully defends against the enforcement of a contract, when the gravamen of the transaction is a commercial transaction, nevertheless may be entitled to attorney fees even though the court has ruled that no contract exists or it is unenforceable. ... This appeal was based on a contract action and under § 12-120(3) we award attorney fees to Jones.

Section 12-120(3) does not apply merely because a claim arose from a commercial transaction; the transaction must be integral to the claim and the basis for recovery.

Brooks v. Gigray Ranches, Inc. · filed 1996-01-29(3)

The fact that the conversion claim arose out of a commercial transaction is not sufficient to apply I.C. § 12-120(3): “the commercial transaction must be integral to the claim and constitute the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.”

Section 12-120(3) requires attorney fees for the prevailing party when the lawsuit’s gravamen is recovery on a commercial transaction, including on appeal.

Dennett v. Kuenzli · filed 1997-03-10(3)

That statute mandates an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in any civil action to recover on “any commercial transaction.” ... Here, the gravamen of the plaintiffs claim has been the enforcement of an option to purchase commercial farming property. ... The district court was, therefore, correct in holding that a commercial transaction was the basis of the lawsuit and in granting attorney fees to Dennett.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney-fee recovery for the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a commercial transaction, subject to the statute’s other requirements.

Steiner v. Ziegler Tamura Ltd., Co. · filed 2002-12-31(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) allows for the recovery of attorney fees by the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on any commercial transaction. ... Both parties seek an award for attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-120(3). A prerequisite to an award of attorney fees under that section is that the party prevails. Ziegler-Tamura is not the prevailing party on appeal and therefore does not qualify for an award of attorney fees.

Section 12-120(3) requires a prevailing party to receive reasonable attorney fees in a commercial transaction, and a contract for property intended for resale is commercial.

Meikle v. Watson · filed 2003-04-18(3)

The controversy in this case involves a contract for the sale of property meant for resale. The contract is commercial in nature, and the award of attorney’s fees was proper in the district court and in this Court on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees to the prevailing party when litigation concerns the existence of a contract to purchase real property for a housing development, because that transaction is commercial.

Heritage Excavation, Inc. v. Briscoe · filed 2005-01-05(3)

The Idaho Supreme Court has previously concluded that the test for application of this statute is whether a commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit; that is, whether the commercial transaction is integral to the claim and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. ... We conclude that litigation regarding the existence of a contract to purchase real property for the purpose of a housing development likewise falls under I.C. § 12-120(3). Accordingly, Briscoe as the prevailing party is awarded his attorney fees.

Section 12-120(3) allows an award of attorney fees in an action grounded in a commercial transaction.

Dengler v. Hazel Blessinger Family Trust · filed 2005-01-28(3)

In the alternative, the Trust has asked for fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3), which allows an award of fees for an action grounded in a commercial transaction. Both support an award of fees, and it is so ordered.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action involving a commercial transaction, but it does not provide an additional fee basis for an employer defending an employee's wage claim when section 45-612 is the employer's sole statutory basis.

Bakker v. Thunder Spring-Wareham, LLC · filed 2005-02-17(3)

Thunder Spring also argues that fees should be awarded pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3), allowing recovery of fees in an action based on a commercial transaction. In Zattiero v. Homedale Sch. Dist. No. 370, 137 Idaho 568, 51 P.3d 382 (2002), an employee sued a school district for wages, based on breach of contract and quantum meruit. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district. On appeal, the district court’s judgment was affirmed. The school district sought an award of attorney fees based on I.C. § 12-120(3), but this Court declined to make such award, holding that I.C. § 45-612 was the employer’s sole basis for an award. While this action did address breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which is not a “wage claim,” we have concluded that breach of the covenant was not reached as an issue on appeal. We see no reason to distinguish this case from Zattiero and we decline to award attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires attorney fees for prevailing parties in commercial-transaction suits, but does not apply when the complaint’s gravamen is violation of a statute rather than a contract or commercial transaction.

Hayden Lake Fire Protection District v. Alcorn · filed 2005-02-28(3)

However, where the gravamen of a complaint regards a violation of a statute rather than a contract or commercial transaction, I.C. § 12-120(3) does not apply.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees to the prevailing party when a declaratory judgment action has a commercial transaction as its gravamen, including an employment agreement.

Freiburger v. J-U-B Engineers, Inc. · filed 2005-03-24(3)

First, the Edwards case has no application here because there was no commercial transaction which constituted the “gravamen” of the suit. Here, the gravamen of both Freiburger’s declaratory judgment action and J-U-B’s counterclaim was the enforceability of a covenant contained in an employment agreement. The term “commercial transaction” is defined in § 12-120(3) as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” Thus, “[w]here a party alleges the existence of a contractual relationship of a type embraced by section 12-120(3), ... that claim triggers the application of the statute.” Continental Cas. Co. v. Brady, 127 Idaho 830, 835, 907 P.2d 807, 812 (1995). There must, however, be a nexus between the commercial transaction and the lawsuit. Id. There is no question that a “commercial transaction” as defined in I.C. § 12-120(3) is involved here. Both parties entered into an employment agreement which contained a restrictive covenant. Freiburger brought this action seeking a judicial declaration regarding his potential contractual obligations under the Covenant. This obligation is clearly grounded in a “commercial” contract.

Subsection (3) authorizes attorney fees in commercial-transaction litigation, and applies on appeal when the issue is entitlement to fees rather than the amount of the award.

Eighteen Mile Ranch, LLC v. Nord Excavating & Paving, Inc. · filed 2005-07-01(3)

While it does not specifically refer to subsection (3) of I.C. § 12-120, it adequately identifies the ground under which fees are sought. ... Here, the Nords and Nord Excavating did so in them initial memorandum of costs and attorney fees, citing the commercial transaction ground, which is set forth in subsection (3) of I.C. § 12-120. They are not prevented from seeking an award just because their answer or counterclaim did not specifically designate this provision. ... When the appeal of an order on attorney fees concerns entitlement to them, not the amount of an award, the statute does apply.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees to the prevailing party when a commercial transaction is integral to and forms the basis of the claim, rather than merely remotely connected.

Ryder v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission · filed 2005-09-06(3)

Idaho Code 12-120(3) authorizes the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party when the action is based on a commercial transaction. The statute defines commercial transactions as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” ... [T]he award of attorney fees is not warranted every time a commercial transaction is remotely connected with the case. Rather, the test is whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit. Attorneys fees are not appropriate under I.C. 12-120(3) unless the commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes a reasonable attorney-fee award in litigation arising from a commercial transaction, but Rule 54(e)'s default-judgment limitations apply unless inconsistent with the statute.

Holladay v. Lindsay · filed 2006-11-01(3)

Holladay contends that he is entitled to attorney fees under Idaho’s Racketeering Act, I.C. § 18-7805; under the Consumer Protection Act, I.C. § 48-608(4); and under I.C. § 12-120(3) which authorizes an attorney fee award in litigation arising from a commercial transaction. ... However, the provisions of I.R.C.P. 54(e) apply to any claim for attorney fees made pursuant to any statute, unless those provisions are inconsistent with the statute. I.R.C.P. 54(e)(8). Nothing about the district court’s application of the limiting provisions of I.R.C.P. 54(e)(4) is inconsistent with the statutes cited by Holladay.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees on appeal to the prevailing party in an action to recover on a commercial transaction.

J.R. Simplot Co. v. Bosen · filed 2006-11-28(3)

Because this is an action to recover on a commercial transaction and Simplot is the prevailing party on appeal, it is entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction.

Fritts v. Liddle & Moeller Construction, Inc. · filed 2007-03-28(3)

Idaho Code section 12-120(3) mandates an award of fees to the prevailing party in a suit involving a commercial transaction. ... There is no question, however, that the Frittses’ complaint alleged breach of a construction contract for a home, which may be a commercial transaction. ... We affirm the district court’s award of attorney fees to Liddle & Moeller under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees when a commercial transaction is integral to the claim and forms the basis for the recovery.

Watson v. Watson · filed 2007-04-27(3)

Attorney fees are appropriate under Idaho Code § 12-120(3) where the commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. ... A commercial transaction is the gravamen of this case because the parties purchased the property in large part for purposes of logging it and the district court was called upon to apportion the logging proceeds. Thus, we award reasonable attorney fees on appeal to David.

Section 12-120(3) requires a party seeking attorney fees under it to contend that the action involved a commercial transaction.

Cristo Viene Pentecostal Church v. Paz · filed 2007-05-24(3)

I agree that Respondent did not properly request attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(3) because he did not contend that this was a commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) requires reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party in a civil action arising from a commercial transaction when that transaction is integral to and forms the basis of the claim; accounts, notes, guarantees, and real-estate development and sales contracts qualify.

Vanderford Co., Inc. v. Knudson · filed 2007-07-13(3)

The rule defines commercial transactions as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” I.C. § 12-120(3); Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC, 143 Idaho 723, 728, 152 P.3d 594, 599 (2007). An award of attorney fees is proper where the commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. Brower v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 117 Idaho 780, 784, 792 P.2d 345, 349 (1990). ... In this ease the transactions involve accounts, notes, guarantees, and contracts for real estate development and sales are commercial transactions which constitute the gravamen of the lawsuit.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees when a commercial transaction is integral to and forms the basis of the claim, and real-estate development and sales transactions involving accounts, notes, guarantees, and contracts qualify as commercial transactions.

The Vanderford Company, Inc. v. Greif · filed 2007-07-13(3)

The rule defines commercial transactions as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” I.C. § 12-120(3); Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC, 143 Idaho 723, 728, 152 P.3d 594, 599 (2007). An award of attorney fees is proper where the commercial-transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. Brower v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 117 Idaho 780, 784, 792 P.2d 345, 349 (1990). Some cases dealing primarily with property ownership and easement rights have not been considered commercial transactions. See Baxter v. Craney, 135 Idaho 166, 174-75, 16 P.3d 263, 271-72 (2000) (boundary dispute is not commercial transaction because relationship between the parties is not of a commercial nature where land owners are engaged in the businesses of ranching and farming). Such decisions stem from the idea that an award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) is not appropriate every time a commercial transaction is remotely connected with the case. Sun Valley Hot Springs Ranch, Inc. v. Kelsey, 131 Idaho 657, 663, 962 P.2d 1041, 1047 (1998). In this case the transactions involve accounts, notes, guarantees, and contracts for real estate development and sales are commercial transactions which constitute the gravamen of the lawsuit.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees to the prevailing party when the action is based on a commercial transaction, defined as a transaction other than one for personal or household purposes.

Gunter v. Murphy's Lounge, LLC · filed 2005-01-14(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) authorizes the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party when the action is based on a commercial transaction. The statute defines commercial transactions as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.”

Section 12-120(3) allows attorney fees when a commercial transaction is integral to the claims and mandates attorney fees on appeal as well as at trial.

Lettunich v. Key Bank National Ass'n · filed 2005-03-28(3)

While Lettunich argues that the fraud claim is not a commercial transaction, the fact is, all of Lettunich’s claims arise within the commercial context of Lettunich attempting to obtain a loan for his business. The fraud claim is simply another aspect of Lettunich’s claim that he purchased cattle at the sale as a result of KeyBank’s representations. All of this is integral to the commercial transaction between KeyBank and Lettunich. The district court’s award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) was proper. ... “This Court has interpreted I.C. § 12-120(3) to mandate the award of attorney fees on appeal as well as at trial.”

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees when the dispute is primarily about determining property rights such as whether an easement exists.

Bedke v. Pickett Ranch and Sheep Co. · filed 2006-05-25(3)

We therefore hold that Idaho Code § 12-120(3) does not provide a basis for awarding attorney fees in this case.

Section 12-120(3) generally authorizes attorney fees to prevailing parties in litigation over commercial transactions.

In Re Astle · filed 2007-03-22(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) is a general, statutory authorization for fees to prevailing parties in litigation over commercial transactions.

Section 12-120(3) defines commercial transactions as all transactions except those for personal or household purposes, and an investment-oriented purchase for rent and resale is commercial.

Cannon v. Perry · filed 2007-10-19(3)

Commercial transactions are “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” I.C. § 12-120(3). The statute does not require that there be a contract. Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, L.L.C., _____ Idaho _____ (2007, Opinion No. 17). There is no dispute that the Cannons’ involvement in these transactions was for personal or household purposes. Although Hinrichs and Moreno contend that they were acting only as friends of the Cannons, each of them testified in their depositions that they were buying the property for investment purposes. The arrangement was not a gift to the Cannons; Hinrichs and Moreno would collect rent and ultimately sell it to the Cannons at an appraised price. The district court correctly found, therefore, that the transaction was a commercial transaction with respect to Hinrichs, Moreno and the Perrys.

Section 12-120(3) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees in an action to recover in a commercial transaction.

Swanson v. Beco Const. Co., Inc. · filed 2007-11-23(3)

Both parties seek attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-120(3). They agree that because this is an action to recover in a commercial transaction, the prevailing party is entitled to an award of attorney fees. Because BECO did not prevail on this appeal, it is not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Swanson is the prevailing party on this appeal, and he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees under that statute.

Section 12-120(3) entitles the prevailing party in a commercial transaction to a reasonable attorney fee.

Straub v. Smith · filed 2007-11-27(3)

The Smiths have a statutory right to an award of attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-120(3). Straub agrees that “[t]he underlying transaction between the parties was clearly a commercial transaction under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).” The Smiths are also clearly the prevailing parties in this litigation.

Section 12-120(3) treats an action for breach of an employment contract as a commercial transaction subject to prevailing-party attorney fees.

MacKay v. Four Rivers Packing Co. · filed 2008-02-19(3)

Actions brought for breach of an employment contract are considered commercial transactions, subject to the attorney fee provision of I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees only when a commercial transaction is integral to the claim and the parties have the required commercial relationship; fees here covered the contract claim but not later litigation.

BECO Construction Co. v. J-U-B Engineers, Inc. · filed 2008-05-02(3)

The case at bar clearly involved a “commercial transaction” within the meaning of I.C. § 12-120(3), but the transaction was between the City and BECO and not between J-U-B and BECO. J-U-B was acting as the City’s agent in the transaction but there was no commercial relationship between J-U-B and BECO. Therefore, I.C. § 12-120(3) does not provide the basis for a fee award to J-U-B after the point where the contractual claim was dismissed. Up to that point, J-U-B is entitled to its fees for defending against the contract claim. After that point, J-U-B is not entitled to its fees because there is no commercial transaction between the parties.

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney’s fees for a quiet-title action because real estate transactions and disputes over property ownership are not generally commercial transactions.

Anderson v. Rex Hayes Family Trust · filed 2008-05-07(3)

This statute does not apply to the facts of this case. This Court has upheld a lower court’s ruling that commercial transactions generally do not include real estate transactions or issues involving the ownership of property, such as an action to quiet title. Treasure Valley Concrete, Inc. v. State, 132 Idaho 673, 677, 978 P.2d 233, 237 (1999). Therefore, the statute under which Hayes requests attorney’s fees is inapplicable. Neither party may receive attorney’s fees.

Section 12-120(3) allows reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party when the gravamen of the claims is a commercial transaction, including claims integral to that transaction.

Esser Electric v. Lost River Ballistics Technologies, Inc. · filed 2008-05-15(3)

Thus, the gravamen of all of the claims alleged by both parties in this lawsuit was the commercial transaction between the parties. As the prevailing party on appeal, Lost River is entitled to an award of a reasonable attorney fee under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees for a commercial transaction involving tortious conduct when the transaction is integral to the claim and forms the basis for recovery; the court need not make specific written findings on each Rule 54(e)(3) factor.

Lee v. Nickerson · filed 2008-07-10(3)

Rather, the law is clearly settled that when awarding attorney fees in a civil action, the district court must consider the I.R.C.P. 54(e)(3) factors, but need not make specific written findings on the various factors. ... In Blimka we observed that I.C. § 12-120(3) does not prohibit attorney fees for commercial transactions involving tortious conduct when “the commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.”

Section 12-120(3) can apply to a commercial transaction even when no contract is proven and the claim is based on fraud.

Kilborn v. Haun (In Re Haun) · filed 2008-09-25(3)

Under this provision, the Court must determine if Plaintiff is a “prevailing party” and whether the gravamen of the litigation dealt with a “commercial transaction.” Neither the absence of a proven contract, nor the fact that Plaintiffs claim is based on fraud, precludes operation of Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) allows attorney fees in a declaratory-judgment action when its gravamen is a commercial transaction, and it does not require a contract between the parties.

In Re University Place/Idaho Water Center Project · filed 2008-12-10(3)

“Idaho Code § 12-120(3) does not require that there be a contract between the parties before the statute is applied; the statute only requires that there be a commercial transaction.”

Section 12-120(3) allows the prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees in an action concerning a commercial transaction.

Lapeter 1985 Living Trust v. Canada Life Insurance Co. of America · filed 2009-01-05(3)

This lawsuit concerns a commercial transaction for purposes of Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees in a commercial-transaction action even when the claim sounds in tort and no contract exists.

City of McCall v. Buxton · filed 2009-01-22(3)

The latter portion of the statute is not limited to contract actions. It “does not require that there be a contract between the parties before the statute is applied; the statute only requires that there be a commercial transaction.”

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees for an action concerning the foreclosure of a residence because that action is not a commercial transaction.

PHH Mortgage Services Corp. v. Perreira · filed 2009-01-30(3)

A “commercial transaction” is defined as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” I.C. § 12-120(3). ... This was not an action to recover in a commercial transaction. ... Therefore, PHH cannot recover attorney fees on appeal pursuant to that statute, even if they were the prevailing party on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) permits an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a commercial transaction.

Bates v. Seldin · filed 2009-03-04(3)

Therefore, the district court properly awarded Respondents their attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires attorney fees for the prevailing party in an action to recover on a note or other commercial transaction.

Shore v. Peterson · filed 2009-03-05(3)

Additionally, Idaho Code § 12-120(3) compels an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action to recover on a note or other commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney-fee recovery for the prevailing party in a commercial transaction, but it does not apply to this noncommercial tort action.

Cramer v. Slater · filed 2009-03-05(3)

Respondents are not the prevailing party in this action; therefore, there is no entitlement to attorney‟s fees under either statute. Moreover, this case does not constitute a commercial transaction; therefore I.C. § 12-120(3) is inapplicable to the present action.

Section 12-120(3) requires an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction.

Grover v. Wadsworth · filed 2009-03-05(3)

The district court did not err in granting the Grovers attorney’s fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3), finding that this transaction is a commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) permits reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a commercial transaction.

Bybee v. Isaac · filed 2008-01-30(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) allows an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on any commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) permits the prevailing party to recover attorney fees in an action involving a commercial transaction, including a transaction that is not for personal or household purposes.

American Pension Services, Inc. v. Cornerstone Home Builders, LLC · filed 2009-07-15(3)

American Pension Services requests attorney‟s fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3). I.C. § 12-120(3) provides for the recovery of attorney‟s fees to the prevailing party in an action involving a commercial transaction. I.C. § 12-120(3). The district court found that this was a commercial transaction and Cornerstone does not appeal that finding. We agree that the transaction between Cornerstone and APS constitutes a transaction that is not for personal or household purposes. I.C. § 12-120(3). Therefore, this Court awards attorney‟s fees to APS pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3). Costs to APS.

Section 12-120(3) defines a commercial transaction as any transaction other than one for personal or household purposes, and the action must fall within that definition for attorney fees to be awarded under the statute.

Houston v. Whittier · filed 2009-08-21(3)

A commercial transaction is defined as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” I.C. § 12-120(3). Defendant has not pointed to anything in the record indicating that action is within the statutory definition of a commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) requires attorney fees for the prevailing party when the lawsuit is to recover on a commercial transaction, which excludes only personal or household transactions.

Troupis v. Summer · filed 2009-10-09(3)

Idaho Code section 12-120(3) compels an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action to recover on a commercial transaction. I.C. § 12-120(3); BECO Constr. Co., Inc. v. J-U-B Eng’rs, Inc., 145 Idaho 719, 726, 184 P.3d 844, 851 (2008). A court must award attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action to recover on a ―commercial transaction.‖ I.C. § 12-120(3); BECO, 145 Idaho at 726, 184 P.3d at 851. A ―commercial transaction‖ is defined as ―all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.‖ I.C. § 12-120(3). The test to determine whether this section applies is whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit; it must be integral to the claim and constitute the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover. Johannsen v. Utterbeck, 146 Idaho 423, 432, 196 P.3d 341, 350 (2008). The Summers and Troupises owned the real property in question to conduct their business together. Therefore, the lawsuit was to recover on a commercial transaction and the Troupises are entitled to an award of attorney fees.

Section 12-120(3) requires an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party when the claim arises from a commercial transaction that is integral to and forms the basis of the recovery.

Meyers v. Hansen · filed 2009-11-27(3)

The court must always award attorney fees to the prevailing party ―in commercial transactions.‖ I.C. § 12-120(3). ―The term ‗commercial transaction‘ is defined to mean all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.‖ Id. Fees are required if ―the commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.‖ Brower v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 117 Idaho 780, 784, 792 P.2d 345, 349 (1990). Although Hansen characterized the investment as a personal loan to him, Meyers and her late husband invested nearly $300,000 in Ideal Consultants, what they believed was a legitimate attempt to build a revenue-generating program known as the Congressional Accountability Project. This was a fraudulent commercial transaction and Meyers is entitled to attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) in recouping her losses. Cf. Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, 143 Idaho 723, 728–29, 152 P.3d 594, 599–600 (2007) (permitting attorney fees on a goods-purchase fraud claim).

Section 12-120(3) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees for the litigation portion of a commercial-transaction civil action, but not for arbitration proceedings.

Grease Spot, Inc. v. Harnes · filed 2010-02-01(3)

Like § 41-1839, this statute only entitles the prevailing party to attorney fees in a “civil action,” not in arbitration. I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires attorney fees to be awarded to the prevailing party in an action arising out of a commercial transaction.

Goodman Oil Co. v. Scotty's Duro-Bilt Generator, Inc. · filed 2010-02-03(3)

Attorney fees are to be awarded under I.C. § 12-120(3) to the prevailing party in an action arising out of a commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney fee for the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a commercial transaction, while transactions for personal or household purposes are excluded.

BLACK DIAMOND ALLIANCE, LLC. v. Kimball · filed 2010-03-25(3)

This Court declines to award attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3) because this was not an action to recover on a commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) allows a prevailing party to recover attorney fees in a declaratory-judgment action when the action's gravamen is a commercial transaction.

Apple's Mobile Catering, LLC v. O'Dell · filed 2010-05-28(3)

Therefore, Buyer is entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a civil action for a commercial transaction, which is one whose commercial transaction is integral to and forms the basis of the claim.

Johannsen v. Utterbeck · filed 2008-10-16(3)

In civil actions for commercial transactions attorney’s fees are to be awarded to the prevailing party. I.C. § 12-120(3). The critical test in determining whether a civil action is for a commercial transaction is whether the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the lawsuit; it must be integral to the claim and constitute the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney-fee awards in declaratory-judgment actions when the action’s gravamen is a commercial transaction, including transactions not for personal or household purposes.

University of Idaho Foundation, Inc. v. Civic Partners, Inc. · filed 2008-12-10(3)

The statute applies to declaratory judgment actions if the gravamen of the action is a commercial transaction. ... “The term ‘commercial transaction’ is defined to mean all transactions except transactions for personal and household purposes.” I.C. § 12-120(3). ... Finally, this commercial transaction was the gravamen of the Foundation’s lawsuit. ... The district court did not err in concluding that the CCDC was entitled to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees against a county when § 12-117 exclusively governs the action.

Smith v. Washington County Idaho · filed 2010-12-15(3)

As noted above, I.C. § 12-117 specifically provides for attorney fees in actions against the counties, so it governs this case exclusively. See I.C. § 12-117(4)(b). Smith therefore cannot receive attorney fees under I.C. §§ 12-120(3) or 12-121.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction, and the award is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Thomas v. Thomas · filed 2011-03-18(3)

Under I.C. § 12-120(3), “in any civil action . . . in any commercial transaction . . . the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court.” ... Thus, this Court holds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in the amount of attorney fees it awarded.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction.

Fazzio v. Mason · filed 2011-03-21(3)

Because the Fazzios are the prevailing party in this civil action involving a commercial transaction, we award attorney fees to the Fazzios pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) allows the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction to recover reasonable attorney fees, but it does not apply when the action is based on a criminal judgment rather than a commercial transaction.

COLLECTION BUREAU, INC. v. Dorsey · filed 2011-03-21(3)

Under I.C. § 12-120(3), the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction is entitled to reasonable attorney fees. Although I.C. § 19-2518 authorizes Collection Bureau to pursue the money judgment against Dorsey as though it were in a civil action, the basis for this action is a criminal judgment that resulted from a criminal proceeding, not a commercial transaction. Thus, I.C. § 12-120(3) is inapplicable.

Section 12-120(3) does not support an attorney-fee award on appeal when the requesting party provides no authority or argument that the statute applies to the parties in the appeal.

Bates v. Schwarzkopf · filed 2011-03-28(3)

Bates has provided no authority or argument that I.C. § 12-120(3) applies to the parties in this appeal and, therefore, we decline to award attorney fees on this ground.

Subsection 12-120(3) authorizes an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action arising from a commercial transaction.

Knipe Land Co. v. Robertson · filed 2011-05-26(3)

As both parties agree that this action arises out of a commercial transaction, we find that Appellants are entitled to attorney fees in accordance with I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney-fee awards in legal-malpractice actions only when a commercial transaction occurred between the prevailing party and the party from whom fees are sought.

Soignier v. Fletcher · filed 2011-06-02(3)

The district court was incorrect to hold that Fletcher could collect attorney fees against Soignier because there was no commercial transaction between them. ... The district court’s decision to award attorney fees to Fletcher under I.C. § 12-120(3) is vacated.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees on appeal only when there was a commercial transaction between the fee claimant and one or both defendants.

Jacklin Land Co. v. Blue Dog RV, Inc. · filed 2011-06-29(3)

In order for that statute to apply, there must have been a commercial transaction between Jacklin and one or both of the Defendants.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees in a legal-malpractice action only when a commercial transaction occurred between the prevailing party and the party from whom fees are sought.

Soignier v. Fletcher · filed 2011-06-30(3)

This provision requires attorney-fee awards for the prevailing party in a civil action in “any commercial transaction.” ... The commercial transaction must be integral to and the basis upon which a party is attempting to recover. ... The categorical rule against awarding attorney fees under § 12-120(3) in tort actions no longer applies in Idaho. ... In that case, we ruled instead that § 12-120(3) “does not require that there be a contract between the parties before the statute is applied; the statute only requires that there be a commercial transaction.” ... The district court was incorrect to hold that Fletcher could collect attorney fees against Soignier because there was no commercial transaction between them.