Idaho Code § 12-120

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

Perron v. Martinez · filed 2025-03-05(3)

The prevailing party may recover attorney fees in a civil action involving a commercial transaction pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3). The parties agree this was a commercial transaction. ... Perron is not the prevailing party, and therefore, is not entitled to the award of attorney fees.

Section 12-120(3) requires a court to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action to recover on a qualifying commercial transaction, determined by whether the transaction is integral to and the basis of the claim.

LLLP v. Hoffman Construction Company of America · filed 2025-03-31(3)

Under Idaho Code § 12-120(3), the Court must award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a contract relating to the purchase or sale of merchandise, or in any other commercial transaction unless otherwise provided by law. The statute defines a commercial transaction as “all transactions except [those] for personal or household purposes.” Id. To determine if attorney’s fees should be awarded pursuant to § 12-120(3), the Court must analyze: (1) if there is a commercial transaction that is integral to the claim; and (2) if the commercial transaction [is] the basis upon which recovery is sought. Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Nw. Pipeline Corp., 36 P.3d 218, 223 (Idaho 2001). “In other words, the relevant inquiry is whether the commercial transaction constituted ‘the gravamen of the lawsuit.’” Garner v. Povey, 259 P.3d 608, 615 (Idaho 2011) (citing Great Plains, 36 P.3d at 224).

Section 12-120(3) permits reasonable attorney fees in civil actions involving commercial transactions, including appeals, and treats a non-personal purchase and sale of real property as a commercial transaction.

Petersen v. Millennial Development Partners, LLC · filed 2025-04-15(3)

Idaho Code section 12-120(3) allows the court to award reasonable attorney fees in civil actions involving any commercial transactions, including on appeal. ... “Commercial transaction” is defined as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” I.C. § 12-120(3). This case involves a commercial transaction within the meaning of Idaho Code section 12-120(3) because it is based on a purchase and sale of real property that is not for personal or household purposes. Accordingly, we award Millennial attorney fees under this statute as the prevailing party on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) requires a prevailing-party fee award when a commercial transaction is integral to and the basis of the claim; an income-generating investment qualifies, but fees do not extend to claims where the transaction is not the gravamen.

LaKamp v. Runft · filed 2025-07-28(3)

The Court holds the LaKamps’ investment into the commercial landfill project qualifies as a commercial transaction under § 12-120(3). ... A commercial transaction was the gravamen of seven of those claims. As such, the Runft Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(3) on those seven claims but failed to provide an adequate basis for recovery on the other five claims. Accordingly, the Runft Defendants are awarded 58.3% of the reasonable lodestar figure of $83,196.50.

Section 12-120(3) requires reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party when a commercial transaction is integral to the claim and forms the basis of recovery; an investment made to generate income qualifies.

LaKamp v. Runft · filed 2025-09-17(3)

Under Idaho Code § 12-120(3), a court must award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a contract relating to the purchase or sale of merchandise, or in any other commercial transaction unless otherwise provided by law. The statute defines a commercial transaction as “all transactions except [those] for personal or household purposes.” Id. To determine if attorney’s fees should be awarded pursuant to § 12-120(3), the Court must analyze: (1) if there is a commercial transaction that is integral to the claim; and (2) if the commercial transaction [is] the basis upon which recovery is sought. Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Northwest Pipeline Corp., 36 P.3d 218, 223 (Idaho 2001). “In other words, the relevant inquiry is whether the commercial transaction constituted ‘the gravamen of the lawsuit.’” Garner v. Povey, 259 P.3d 608, 615 (Idaho 2011) (citing Great Plains, 36 P.3d at 224). ... The Court finds the LaKamps’ investment into the commercial landfill project qualifies as a commercial transaction under § 12-120(3). “A commercial transaction can be characterized as one in which the purpose for entering into the transaction was to generate income.” Carter v. Gateway Parks, LLC, 483 P.3d 971, 984 (Idaho 2020) (citing Stevens v. Eyer, 387 P.3d 75, 80 (Idaho 2016)). Charles invested $250,000.00 with the understanding he would receive an interest in Simco, and presumably, a return on his investment. Because his purpose was to generate income, his investment constitutes a commercial transaction. Thus, the Simco Defendants are entitled to an award of fees and costs as the prevailing party on the LaKamps’ unsuccessful state claims involving Charles’s investment.

Section 12-120(3) treats all transactions except those for personal or household purposes as commercial transactions for purposes of awarding attorney fees.

Ward v. Bishop Construction · filed 2025-12-31(3)

Both parties request attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(3) because the claim arose out of a commercial transaction. “[A]ll transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes” are commercial transactions. I.C. § 12-120(3); see also Oakes v. Boise Heart Clinic Physicians, PLLC, 152 Idaho 540, 546-47, 272 P.3d 512, 518-19 (2012) (holding that breach of employment contract claims are commercial transactions). Bishop has not prevailed on appeal and is not entitled to attorney fees. Ward has prevailed on his cross-appeal. As such, he is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs.

Section 12-120(3) allows a prevailing party to recover a reasonable attorney’s fee in a commercial transaction.

York v. Kemper Northwest, Inc. · filed 2026-01-20(3)

In sum, our precedents establish that, when requesting fees, a prevailing party must (1) timely cite to a code section or contract provision that forms the basis of the request for attorney fees and (2) analyze why the authority justifies the request. Otherwise, the request is waived. Kemper Northwest failed to meet either requirement because Idaho Code section 12-120(3) was not mentioned in its initial request for attorney fees and there was no analysis of why Rule 54, section 12-121, or any other statute supported its request. Accordingly, because Kemper Northwest’s initial request was fatally deficient, and could not be supplemented, we vacate the district court’s award of fees.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in an action arising from a commercial transaction, but a transaction is not commercial merely because money or property is involved; the claim's gravamen must be the transaction.

Camp Magical Moments, Cancer Camp for Kids, Inc. v. Walsh, Walsh · filed 2026-02-06(3)

Under section 12-120(3), the prevailing party in an action arising out of a “commercial transaction” “shall be allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee.” I.C. § 12-120(3). A “commercial transaction” is defined by the statute as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” Id. Even so, as this Court has consistently explained, the mere involvement of money or property does not, by itself, render a dispute commercial in nature. ... When the allegations underpinning the case are tort-based, notwithstanding a monetary dispute, those claims do not qualify as arising from a commercial transaction. ... As a result, CMM is not entitled to an award of fees under section 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) treats the procurement of business insurance as a commercial transaction supporting an award of reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

Green Technology Lighting Corp. v. Insure Idaho, LLC · filed 2024-11-13(3)

To begin, the Court finds that the procurement of business insurance in this suit qualifies as a commercial transaction under the definition provided in Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees on appeal for the prevailing party in a civil action concerning a commercial transaction.

Ridgeline Medical, LLC v. Lyon · filed 2026-01-09(3)

Ridgeline argues that it is entitled to attorney fees on appeal as the prevailing party under Idaho Appellate Rule 40 and Idaho Code section 12-120(3). That code section authorizes an award of attorney fees on appeal to a prevailing party in a civil action concerning a commercial transaction. I.C. § 12-120(3). Ridgeline, however, is not the prevailing party on appeal and therefore is not entitled to attorney fees.

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

Ridgeline Medical, LLC v. Lyon · filed 2026-01-09(3)

Ridgeline argues that it is entitled to attorney fees on appeal as the prevailing party under Idaho Appellate Rule 40 and Idaho Code section 12-120(3). That code section authorizes an award of attorney fees on appeal to a prevailing party in a civil action concerning a commercial transaction. I.C. § 12-120(3). Ridgeline, however, is not the prevailing party on appeal and therefore is not entitled to attorney fees.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees based on the character or gravamen of the underlying commercial transaction, regardless of which counsel represented the party or who hired that counsel.

Bott v. Idaho State Building Authority · filed 1996-05-17(3)

The determination of whether an award of attorney fees is proper requires an analysis of the character of the underlying law suit and does not look at who is counsel representing the party, or who hired that counsel.

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a civil action involving an alleged commercial transaction, even when no liability under the alleged contract is established.

Peterson v. Shore · filed 2008-11-03(3)

This conclusion was inconsistent with the applicable legal standards established by the Idaho Supreme Court. Therefore, the district court’s order denying the Shores’s motion for attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) was an abuse of discretion. The parties dispute the proper amount of attorney fees for the underlying case. We therefore reverse and remand to the district court for a hearing on the amount of attorney fees to be awarded to the Shores. As the prevailing party, the Shores are entitled to any attorney fees incurred exclusively in defending this action.

Section 12-120(3) permits an attorney-fee award for a civil action involving a commercial transaction, and a sale of property for development qualifies as a commercial transaction.

Tomlinson Black North Idaho v. Kirk-Hughes · filed 2009-11-13(3)

The award of attorney’s fees to Tomlinson was proper. The sale of property for the purpose of development was a “commercial transaction,” Idaho Code § 12-120(3), and the Idaho Court of Appeals has held that fees are appropriate in cases almost exactly like this one, see Erickson v. Flynn, 64 P.3d 959, 966–67 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002).

Section 12-120(3) permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees in a civil action on a commercial transaction when state law supplies the rule of decision.

Krommenhoek v. A-Mark Precious Metals, Inc. (In re Bybee) · filed 1991-09-27(3)

In such an action, Idaho Code § 12-120(3) would have permitted A-Mark, as prevailing party in a civil action on a commercial transaction, to recover its reasonable fees.

Section 12-120(3) requires an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in a commercial transaction, including on appeal; financing land for commercial farming qualifies.

Farm Credit Bank of Spokane v. Stevenson · filed 1994-02-24(3)

The phrase “commercial transaction” is defined in the code as “all transactions except transactions for personal or household purposes.” In this ease, Stevenson and the Bank entered into a transaction to finance the purchase of real property, which Stevenson intended to use and did use for his commercial farming operations. ... Accordingly, we award the Bank a reasonable attorney fee on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees at trial and on appeal when a commercial transaction is the basis of the claim.

Tri State Land Co., Inc. v. Roberts · filed 1998-07-30(3)

Here, Tri State was attempting to recover monetary damages based upon an alleged breach of the joint venture agreement by Roberts. Since this is a “commercial transaction,” and Roberts is the prevailing party, he is also entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, both in the trial court and on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) requires an attorney fee award to the prevailing party in an action based on a commercial transaction.

Viafax Corp. v. Stuckenbrock · filed 2000-02-18(3)

The parties are in agreement that this action is based upon a commercial transaction, and thus falls under I.C. § 12-120(3), which mandates an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party. Accordingly, attorney fees, as well as costs, are awarded to Stuekenbrock in an amount to be determined under Idaho Appellate Rules 40 and 41.

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

Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC. · filed 2007-01-29(3)

The commercial transaction ground in I.C. § 12-120(3) neither prohibits a fee award for a commercial transaction that involves tortious conduct (see Lettunich v. Key Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 141 Idaho 362, 369, 109 P.3d 1104, 1111 (2005)), nor does it require that there be a contract.

Section 12-120(3) allows the prevailing party to recover attorney fees in a dispute over unpaid invoices for water delivery and maintenance services because the dispute is a commercial transaction.

Big Wood Ranch v. Water Users' Association of the Broadford Slough and Rockwell Bypass Lateral Ditches, Inc. · filed 2015-03-02(3)

This action stems from a dispute over years of outstanding invoices allegedly due and owing to the Association by BWR for services rendered in connection with the delivery and maintenance of BWR’s surface water rights. This constitutes a commercial transaction. Although this Court holds that the Association is not qualified under Idaho Code section 42-1301 to operate as a water users’ association, both parties agree that the gravamen of this lawsuit is a commercial transaction. For these reasons, and because BWR is the prevailing party on appeal, BWR is entitled to attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(3).

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

Monitor Fin., L.C. v. Wildlife Ridge Estates, LLC · filed 2019-01-09(3)

Therefore, the Beneficiaries are awarded reasonable attorney's fees under Section 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits an attorney’s fee award when an alleged commercial relationship forms the basis of the claims.

Scoyni v. Central Valley Fund L.P. · filed 2022-04-19(3)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees ... under Idaho Code § 12-120(3) because an alleged commercial relationship formed the basis of Scoyni’s claims.

Section 12-120 does not support an appellate attorney-fee award when the appeal concerns only the amounts of the trial court's fee awards.

Davidson v. Beco Corp. · filed 1989-08-24

Because the instant appeal was taken solely from the amounts of attorney fee awards by the trial court, no attorney fees on appeal are awarded under I.C. § 12-120.

Section 12-120(3) permits the amount of attorney fees awarded at trial to be considered when determining attorney fees on appeal.

Phillips v. Miles · filed 1989-09-28(3)

The amount of attorney fees awarded at trial is an appropriate factor in determining the award of attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120 authorizes an award of attorney fees in an action on a promissory note.

Thomson v. Sunny Ridge Village Partnership · filed 1990-08-08

However, because this is an action on a promissory note, we deem I.C. § 12-120 to be applicable. Accordingly, we award attorney fees to McNelis under that statute, in an amount to be determined in accordance with I.A.R. 41(d).

Section 12-120(3) permits a prevailing party on appeal to receive a further award of costs and attorney fees.

Anderson v. Schwegel · filed 1990-08-17(3)

We further hold that Schwegel is the prevailing party on appeal. ... Accordingly, Schwegel is entitled to a further award of costs and attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) in an amount to be determined pursuant to I.A.R. 40 and 41.

Section 12-120 does not authorize attorney fees on an appeal limited to reviewing the denial of attorney fees rather than the underlying commercial transaction.

Olsen v. Frank · filed 1994-04-19

In addition, Olsen requests an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120. The basis of this appeal was not the district court’s ruling on the underlying commercial transaction. Rather, Olsen sought on appeal a review of the denial of attorney fees only. Therefore, we decline to award attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-120.

Section 12-120 does not support an appellate attorney-fee award when remand leaves neither party as the prevailing party.

Bouten Construction Co. v. M & L Land Co. · filed 1994-07-13

Finally, as to Magnuson’s claim under I.C. § 12-120, because we are remanding this case for further proceedings, we conclude that neither party has prevailed on this appeal. Accordingly, no award for attorney fees will be made.

Section 12-120(2) entitles the prevailing party to reasonable attorney fees in a civil action to recover on a promissory note.

Walter E. Wilhite Revocable Living Trust v. Northwest Yearly Meeting Pension Fund · filed 1996-04-10(2)

Since this is an action to recover on a promissory note, both parties to the appeal make a demand for attorney’s fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120. We award the Pension Fund attorney’s fees on appeal as well as on cross-appeal.

Section 12-120(3) applies to attorney-fee awards on appeal as well as at trial, and a Rule 54(e)(2) findings requirement does not govern an award under it.

Lunders v. Estate of Snyder · filed 1998-07-01(3)

An award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ... Since the Lunders requested attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3), Rule 54(e)(2) does not apply. ... The Lunders have asked for attorney fees on appeal under I.C. § 12-120(3). This Court has ruled that I.C. § 12-120(3) applies on appeal as well as at trial. ... The Lunders as prevailing parties, therefore, are entitled to reasonable attorney fees.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees on appeal when the specific mechanic’s-lien statute limits fee recovery to fees incurred in district court.

Fairfax v. Ramirez · filed 1999-08-09(3)

Although Fairfax was the prevailing party on this issue and in the-cross-appeal, he cannot recover attorney fees pursuant to section 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) permits a prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees when the request is adequately made under that subsection.

Clark v. State, Department 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(3) mandates attorney fees in civil actions to recover on contracts for services, including employment contracts.

Treasure Valley Gastroenterology Specialists P.A. v. Woods · filed 2001-01-08(3)

Dr. Woods also requests an award of attorney fees incurred on this appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3), which mandates an award of attorney fees in any civil action to recover on a contract for services. Actions on employment contracts are subject to the attorney fee provisions of § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) mandates a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in a qualifying commercial transaction, including on appeal.

Fox v. Mountain West Electric, Inc. · filed 2002-06-06(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) provides: In 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 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. ... “This Court has interpreted I.C. § 12-120(3) to mandate the award of attorney fees on appeal as well as at trial.” ... MWE is the prevailing party in this commercial transaction and is awarded attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) does not apply on appeal when the appellant did not challenge dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim.

Jensen v. State · filed 2003-06-19(3)

However, Jensen did not challenge the dismissal of her breach of contract claim on appeal so § 12-120(3) would not be applicable.

Section 12-120(1) mandates appellate attorney fees to the prevailing party when the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less, and subsection (5) extends qualifying fee awards to post-judgment collection costs and fees.

Action Collection Service, Inc. v. Seele · filed 2003-02-05(1) and (5)

Idaho Code Section 12-120(1) provides for a mandatory award of attorney fees to the prevailing party on appeal where the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less. ... Idaho Code Section 12-120(5) provides that in all instances where a party is entitled to reasonable costs and attorney fees under the statute, such party shall also be entitled to reasonable post-judgment costs and attorney fees incurred in attempting to collect on the judgment. Therefore, we award Action costs and attorney fees incurred on this appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(1) and (5).

Section 12-120 permits attorney fees on appeal only for the prevailing party.

Costa v. Borges · filed 2008-02-15

Borges seeks an award pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 12-120 and 12-121. Under those statutes, attorney fees are only award-able to the prevailing party on appeal. In this case, Costa did not prevail on the issue of dissociation, but he did prevail regarding the cost of the backhoe. Borges did not prevail on his cross-appeal. Considering the mixed results, we hold that there is no prevailing party on appeal. Therefore, neither party is entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) allows only the prevailing party to recover attorney fees on appeal.

Stonebrook Constraction, LLC v. Chase Home Finance, LLC · filed 2012-04-26(3)

Under I.C. §§ 12-120(3) and 12-121, only the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal. Because Stonebrook has not prevailed in this appeal, it is not entitled to attorney fees under either of these statutes.

Section 12-120(3) permits a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in certain civil actions, and appellate fees may be considered only when the party ultimately prevails in the action after remand.

St. Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Associates, LLP · filed 2009-10-21(3)

That statute provides that the prevailing party in certain types of civil actions is entitled to an award of a reasonable attorney‟s fee. A prerequisite to an award of attorney fees under that statute is that the party prevail in the “civil action.” ... Thus, in the instant case, we held: “Both St. Alphonsus and MRIA request an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-120(3). Because we are vacating the judgment and remanding this case, there is not yet a prevailing party.”

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

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.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees on appeal only for the prevailing party.

Stonebrook Constraction, LLC v. Chase Home Finance, LLC · filed 2012-04-26(3)

Under I.C. §§ 12-120(3) and 12-121, only the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal. Because Stonebrook has not prevailed in this appeal, it is not entitled to attorney fees under either of these statutes.

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees on appeal only for the prevailing party, and awards none when both parties prevail in part.

Hurtado v. LAND O'LAKES, INC. · filed 2012-05-29(3)

Both parties request attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3). However, only the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal under that section. Where both parties prevail in part on appeal, this Court does not award attorney fees to either party.

A request for attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-120 must identify the specific statutory provision relied upon and, when necessary, explain why that provision applies.

Siegwarth v. Opportunity Management Co., Inc. · filed 2013-11-26

A general assertion to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120 is insufficient to request attorney fees on appeal, where the specific portion of the statute relied upon is not identified and, if necessary, supported by argument as to why it is applicable.

Section 12-120(3) provides attorney fees only to a prevailing party, and a fee request on appeal must identify the specific statutory basis and support why it applies.

Renshaw v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. · filed 2013-12-18(3)

First, a general assertion to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3) is insufficient to request attorney fees on appeal, where the specific portion of the statute relied upon is not identified and, if necessary, supported by argument as to why it is applicable. Stephen v. Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd., 150 Idaho 521, 529-30, 248 P.3d 1256, 1264-65 (2011); Appel v. LePage, 135 Idaho 133, 139, 15 P.3d 1141, 1147 (2000). Second, that statute only provides for the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party, Storey Constr., Inc. v. Hanks, 148 Idaho 401, 411, 224 P.3d 468, 478 (2009), and Borrower is not the prevailing party on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) awards attorney fees on appeal only to the prevailing party; when both parties prevail in part, neither party receives appellate fees.

Hurtado v. LAND O'LAKES, INC. · filed 2012-05-29(3)

Both parties request attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3). However, only the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal under that section. Where both parties prevail in part on appeal, this Court does not award attorney fees to either party. ... Because we affirm the district court’s judgment as to both the issues appealed and the issue cross-appealed, each party has prevailed only in part. Therefore, neither party is entitled to attorney fees or costs on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) allows the prevailing party attorney fees in a civil action to recover on a guaranty.

Sterling Bank v. Fairfield · filed 2013-08-20(3)

This is an action to recover on a guaranty. Therefore, Sterling Savings, as the prevailing party in this appeal, is entitled to an award of attorney fees under section 12-120(3) in an amount to be determined by this Court.

A party seeking attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code § 12-120 must identify the specific statutory provision relied upon and, when necessary, explain why it applies.

Siegwarth v. Opportunity Management Co., Inc. · filed 2013-11-26

A general assertion to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120 is insufficient to request attorney fees on appeal, where the specific portion of the statute relied upon is not identified and, if necessary, supported by argument as to why it is applicable.

Section 12-120(3) requires a specific, supported statutory basis for an appellate fee request and awards fees only to the prevailing party.

Renshaw v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. · filed 2013-12-18(3)

Borrower is not entitled to an award of attorney fees for two reasons. First, a general assertion to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3) is insufficient to request attorney fees on appeal, where the specific portion of the statute relied upon is not identified and, if necessary, supported by argument as to why it is applicable. Stephen v. Sallaz & Gatewood, Chtd., 150 Idaho 521, 529-30, 248 P.3d 1256, 1264-65 (2011); Appel v. LePage, 135 Idaho 133, 139, 15 P.3d 1141, 1147 (2000). Second, that statute only provides for the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party, Storey Constr., Inc. v. Hanks, 148 Idaho 401, 411, 224 P.3d 468, 478 (2009), and Borrower is not the prevailing party on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) does not award appellate attorney fees to a party who did not prevail, and a fee request must identify and, when necessary, support the specific statutory basis relied upon.

Schmidt v. Huston · filed 2016-12-21(3)

A party who has not prevailed on appeal is not entitled to an award of attorney fees under this statute. ... “[A] general assertion to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12–120(3) is insufficient to request attorney fees on appeal, where the specific portion of the statute relied upon is not identified and, if necessary, supported by argument as to why it is applicable.” ... Therefore, Mr. Huston is not entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal.

Section 12-120 requires a party seeking attorney fees on appeal to prevail on appeal; when both parties prevail in part, the court may deny fees.

Gomez v. Crookham · filed 2020-02-10

The Gomezes request attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code sections 12-120 and 12-121. Under both statutes, the Gomezes must prevail on appeal to recover their attorney fees. I.C. §§ 12-120, -121. “Where both parties prevail in part on appeal, this Court may deny fees.” Caldwell v. Cometto, 151 Idaho 34, 41, 253 P.3d 708, 715 (2011). Both Crookham and the Gomezes prevailed in part on appeal. Accordingly, we decline to award attorney fees to the Gomezes.

Section 12-120 does not authorize an award of attorney fees for an appeal from a divorce proceeding.

Wilson v. Wilson · filed 2020-03-23

However, Jennifer is not entitled to an award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120 because that statute is inapplicable to an appeal from a divorce proceeding.

Section 12-120(3) entitles the prevailing party in a contract action relating to a sale of goods to attorney fees on appeal.

Figueroa v. Kit-San Co. · filed 1992-07-06(3)

Finally, Kit-San is entitled to an award of attorneys fees against H & H and Friendship Truck Express on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3), as the prevailing party in an action based on a contract relating to a sale of goods, together with its costs to be determined under I.A.R. 40 and 41.

Section 12-120 does not apply when nonpecuniary real-property issues are combined with an incidental monetary claim, and it does not cover a neighbor dispute over a fence and easement merely because the litigation has commercial impact.

Jerry J. Joseph C.L.U. Insurance Associates, Inc. v. Vaught · filed 1990-03-21(1), (3)

The corporation urges application of I.C. § 12-120 upon two apparent bases. First, it contends that the complaint was for a sum under $25,000 — i.e., the unpaid irrigation assessments of $604. This monetary claim, argues the corporation, brings the case within I.C. § 12-120(1). It is clear, however, that the $604 claim was the least significant element of this litigation. The gravamen of the suit, as reflected in the corporation’s amended complaint, pertained to the fence and the easement. In our view, nonpecuniary issues cannot be bootstrapped into I.C. § 12-120(1) by combining them with incidental claims for monetary relief. ... Second, the corporation seeks to invoke I.C. § 12-120 by characterizing the case as one arising from a “contract” or “commercial transaction” within the meaning of I.C. § 12-120(3). We are not persuaded. Not all “contracts” are within the scope of the statute. ... In any event, there was no contract in the present case, other than the settlement agreement. This litigation plainly did not arise from that agreement. Neither was there a “transaction” between the parties, giving rise to this litigation. The case arose from a dispute between neighbors relating primarily to a fence and an easement. Although the litigation might have had commercial impact on one or both of the parties, this circumstance would not bring the case within the “commercial transaction” language of I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) mandates attorney fees in actions to recover on contracts for services or commercial transactions, including on appeal.

Tentinger v. McPheters · filed 1999-02-25(3)

Attorney fees are mandatory for actions to recover on a contract relating to the purchase of services or any commercial transaction pursuant to I.C. 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(1) mandates attorney fees to the prevailing party when the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less, and that rule applies to counterclaims.

Roberts v. Wyman · filed 2000-12-14(1)

This award was made pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(1), which mandates an award to the prevailing party (subject to exceptions not relevant here) where the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less. Subsection 2 of that statute specifies that the provisions of subsection 1 also apply to counterclaims. Since Wyman’s counterclaim was for the sum of $5,000, there can be no question that attorney fees were properly awarded under I.C. § 12-120(1).

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees when the lawsuit is based on fraud, even if the underlying transaction was a commercial open account.

Jenkins v. Sroufe (In Re Sroufe) · filed 2001-03-16(3)

Here, while the underlying transaction was a commercial transaction in the form of an open account, the theory advanced by Plaintiff to support an exception to discharge was that Defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations to Plaintiff about payment of the account to induce Plaintiff to grant Defendant credit. While the account is based upon a contract (ie., Defendant’s promise to pay), the basis of Plaintiffs claim here is fraud, a tort. Therefore, under these facts, Plaintiff is also not entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees for the prevailing party in a dispute involving a contract or commercial transaction, but not for a tort claim merely because the underlying transaction was commercial.

McPheters v. Maile · filed 2003-01-24(3)

Under I.C. § 12-120(3), attorney fees may be awarded to the prevailing party in a dispute involving a contract or commercial transaction. ... This statute does not apply to a claim for attorney fees when the action involves a tort, even if the underlying action was a commercial transaction.

Section 12-120(3) applies when a complaint alleges a qualifying commercial contract or open-account claim, and the prevailing defendant may recover attorney fees even if no contract is ultimately established.

Intermountain Real Properties, LLC v. Draw, LLC · filed 2013-10-16(3)

However, a party who alleges an action to recover on an open account or contract related to the purchase of services will also trigger this statute. This Court has held that when “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.”

Section 12-120(3) permits attorney fees to the prevailing party in civil actions to recover on a contract or involving a commercial transaction; breach-of-employment-contract actions qualify as commercial transactions.

Bailey v. Peritos I Assets Management, LLC · filed 2017-07-12(3)

Bailey and Peritus both seek attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-120(3), which entitles the prevailing party to attorney fees “[i]n any civil action to recover on . . . [a] contract . . . and in any commercial transaction . . . .” Section 12-120(3) applies if a “commercial transaction is integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.” ... “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, an award of attorney fees is improper at this juncture. It is presently unclear who the prevailing party will be.

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

Brighton Development, Inc. v. Quenzer Farms, LLLP · filed 2024-10-28(3)

Idaho Code Section 12-120(3) provides for attorney fees to the prevailing party in a contract action involving a commercial transaction. In Lexington Heights Dev., LLC v. Crandlemire, 140 Idaho 276, 287, 92 P.3d 526, 537 (2004), the Idaho Supreme Court awarded attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3) in an action for the purchase of real estate for development. Accordingly, Quenzer Farms is awarded attorney fees on appeal.

Section 12-120 applies only to civil actions and does not authorize attorney fees in a criminal appeal.

State v. Roll · filed 1990-11-26

Idaho Code §§ 12-120 and 12-121 apply only to civil actions and are not applicable to this case.

Section 12-120 authorizes attorney-fee awards in certain types of actions, but does not apply to this guardianship proceeding.

Cole v. Cole · filed 2019-05-16

Idaho Code Section 12-120 governs the award of attorney fees in certain types of actions and does not apply in this case.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees in a legal-malpractice action merely because the underlying transaction was commercial.

Fuller v. Wolters · filed 1991-03-11(3)

In Griggs, neither party asserted that a malpractice action is basically a tort rather than a “commercial transaction.” We were not asked in Griggs to decide whether a malpractice action involving a commercial transaction falls within the parameters of I.C. § 12-120(3). We now hold that an action for legal malpractice is a tort action, and even though the underlying transaction which resulted in the malpractice was a “commercial transaction,” attorney fees under 12-120(3) are not authorized.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees in a legal-malpractice action merely because the underlying transaction was commercial.

Thompson v. Pike · filed 1991-08-01(3)

Subsequent to the district court’s conclusion in this case, however, the Supreme Court clarified its holding in Griggs and decided “that an action for legal malpractice is a tort action, and even though the underlying transaction which resulted in the malpractice was a ‘commercial transaction,’ attorney fees under [I.C. Section] 12-120(3) are not authorized.” Fuller v. Wolters, 119 Idaho 415, 425, 807 P.2d 633, 643 (1991).

Section 12-120 does not apply to a divorce action when the action is neither a qualifying claim for $25,000 or less nor an action on an account, note, contract, or similar commercial transaction.

Smith v. Smith · filed 1998-05-12

Sharon’s assertion of a claim under § 12-120 is inappropriate. The action underlying the judgment that is the subject of this appeal was a divorce action, not an action “where the amount pleaded is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less” nor an action to recover upon an account, note, contract for goods or services, commercial transaction or the like. Section 12-120 is therefore inapplicable.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees for an action to recover on a judgment because a judgment is not one of the statute's enumerated actions.

Rahas v. Mett · filed 2005-03-07(3)

Suit on a judgment is not one of the enumerated actions identified in I.C. § 12-120(3) and therefore the district court erred in awarding attorney fees.

Section 12-120(3) requires an award of reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action to recover on a guaranty.

Sterling Bank v. Fairfield · filed 2013-08-20(3)

This is an action to recover on a guaranty. Therefore, Sterling Savings, as the prevailing party in this appeal, is entitled to an award of attorney fees under section 12-120(3) in an amount to be determined by this Court.

Section 12-120 authorizes attorney fees only for qualifying matters, including claims of $35,000 or less, commercial transactions, personal injury claims, and small-claims cases; it did not authorize fees in this child-custody action.

Quinn v. Quinn · filed 2021-12-14

In addition, attorney fees are not available under I.C. § 12-120 because this action does not concern a matter where the amount pleaded is $35,000 or less, a commercial transaction, a personal injury claim, or a case in small claims court.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees in a legal malpractice action, even when the underlying transaction was commercial.

Rice v. Litster · filed 1999-05-25(3)

However, in Fuller v. Wolters, 119 Idaho 415, 807 P.2d 633 (1991), this Court clarified its holding in Griggs and decided “that an action for legal malpractice is a tort action, and even though the underlying transaction which resulted in the malpractice was a ‘commercial transaction,’ attorney fees under 12-120(3) are not authorized.” ... The Fuller rule has been continuously applied to reject claims for attorney fee awards in legal malpractice actions.

Section 12-120 does not authorize attorney fees for a non-pecuniary easement dispute between landowners that does not arise from a contract or commercial transaction.

Chen v. Conway · filed 1991-07-03

Finally, this dispute was over an easement right between landowners, a non-pecuniary issue and one which did not arise from a contract or a commercial transaction. Therefore, I.C. § 12-120 does not apply.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees in an action between an insured and insurer involving a dispute arising under an insurance policy.

J.R. Simplot Co. v. Western Heritage Insurance · filed 1999-02-22(3)

Had Green brought the action against Western himself, I.C. § 41-1839(4) would have barred the application of I.C. § 12-120(3) regardless of whether Green had a valid claim at the time. Based on the assignment, Simplot’s action against Western should lead to the same result. Therefore, the litigation underlying this appeal falls under the ambit of I.C. § 41-1839(4). Western is an insurer and Simplot, through the assignment, is an insured. The dispute arose under Green’s insurance policy. Consequently, the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to Western under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Idaho Code § 12-120 is not an appropriate source for awarding attorney fees in wage claim disputes.

Polk v. Larrabee · filed 2000-12-15

In this case, both sides have claimed attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120. However, this Court has previously determined that I.C. § 12-120 is not an appropriate source for awarding attorney fees in wage claim disputes.

Section 12-120(1) entitles the prevailing party to costs and reasonable attorney fees when the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less.

Jones v. Berezay · filed 1991-08-21(1)

Pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(1), in an action where the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less, the prevailing party is entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees. ... The discretion given to the trial court in I.R.C.P. 41(a)(2) is not circumscribed by the prevailing party analysis that is mandated by I.C. § 12-120 and I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B).

Section 12-120(1) provides attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action where the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less.

Latham Motors, Inc. v. Phillips · filed 1992-10-23(1)

The district court is also instructed to award Phillips his costs and attorney fees incurred below, both in the magistrate division and in the district court, pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(1), which provides for an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in any action where the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less.

Section 12-120(1) entitles the prevailing party to attorney fees when the amount pleaded in the action is $25,000 or less.

State, Department of Health & Welfare Ex Rel. Osborn v. Altman · filed 1992-11-23(1)

Altman requests attorney fees on appeal, which we grant pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(1). ... This brought the action within the provisions of I.C. § 12-120(1), because the amount pleaded was $25,000 or less. As the prevailing party, Altman was entitled to an award of attorney fees by the trial court.

Section 12-120(1) provides reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action where the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less, and the provision applies on appeal as well as at trial.

Bettinger v. Idaho Auto Auction, Inc. · filed 1996-03-12(1)

Idaho Code Section 12-120(1) provides that “in any action where the amount pleaded is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,-000) or less, there shall be taxed and allowed to the prevailing party, as part of the costs of the action, a reasonable amount to be fixed by the court as attorney fees.” ... Idaho Code Section 12-120, discussed above, applies on appeal as well as during trial. ... Therefore, IAA is entitled to its costs and attorney fees incurred on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-120.

Section 12-120(1) requires an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action where the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less, and the award may include appellate work.

Cornerstone Builders, Inc. v. McReynolds · filed 2001-11-28(1)

That section provides for a mandatory award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action where the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less. I.C. 12-120(1). Attorney fees may be awarded under this section for appellate, as well as trial work.

Section 12-120(4) is the exclusive authorization for attorney-fee recovery in small personal-injury actions, and it does not allow prevailing defendants to recover fees.

Gillihan v. Gump · filed 2003-08-12(4)

Because we conclude that I.C. § 12-120(4) is the exclusive authorization for recovery of attorney fees in small personal injury actions, and because defendants are barred from recovery of fees under that subsection, we hold that the district court erred in awarding attorney fees to the defendants in the present case.

Section 12-120(4) does not require a plaintiff to plead in the complaint that damages are $25,000 or less to recover attorney fees.

Cox v. Mulligan · filed 2005-11-22(4)

We reverse because Idaho Code § 12-120(4) does not require that plaintiff plead damages of $25,000.00 or less.

Section 12-120(1) requires attorney fees to be awarded to the prevailing party in a civil action where the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less.

ACTION COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. v. Haught · filed 2008-08-14(1)

Action’s claim against Haught and Clegg was for damages in the amount of $942.17, clearly under the twenty-five thousand dollar limit. Therefore, Action is entitled to attorney fees on appeal as a prevailing party pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(1).

Section 12-120(3) requires an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a promissory note or negotiable instrument, unless otherwise provided by law.

LC v. Erickson · filed 2007-03-28(3)

Both parties request attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-120(3), which compels an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in any civil action to recover on a promissory note or negotiable instrument unless otherwise provided by law.

Section 12-120(1) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in an action where the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less.

Scott Beckstead Real Estate Co. v. City of Preston · filed 2009-07-07(1)

Idaho Code § 12-120(1) provides that “in any action where the amount pleaded is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less, there shall be taxed and allowed to the prevailing party, as part of the costs of the action, a reasonable amount to be fixed by the court as attorney‟s fees.”

Section 12-120(1) authorizes an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action where the amount pleaded is less than $25,000.

MRS v. Bonneville Billing & Collections · filed 2013-01-18(1)

BBC is the prevailing party and seeks attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(1) and I.A.R. 41. Because the amount pleaded is less than $25,000, we award attorney fees to BBC.

Section 12-120(1) authorizes an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party when the amount pleaded is less than $25,000.

MRS v. Bonneville Billing & Collections · filed 2013-01-18(1)

BBC is the prevailing party and seeks attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(1) and I.A.R. 41. Because the amount pleaded is less than $25,000, we award attorney fees to BBC.

Section 12-120(1) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in an action pleading $35,000 or less, subject to the stated exceptions and plaintiff-demand/tender conditions.

Candace "Andi" W. Elliott · filed 2017-01-20(1)

Idaho Code § 12-120 contains mandatory attorney fee provisions. Subsection (1) provides: (1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section, in any action where the amount pleaded is thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) or less, there shall be taxed and allowed to the prevailing party, as part of the costs of the action, a reasonable amount to be fixed by the court as attorney’s fees. For the plaintiff to be awarded attorney’s fees, for the prosecution of the action, written demand for the payment of such claim must have been made on the defendant not less than ten (10) days before the commencement of the action; provided, that no attorney’s fees shall be allowed to the plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant tendered to the plaintiff, prior to the commencement of the action, an amount at least equal to ninety-five percent (95%) of the amount awarded to the plaintiff. In this case, Elliott’s original complaint for malicious prosecution asked “For judgment in favor of the Plaintiff for damages in an amount of $24,674.17 or such additional sum as the evidence shall show to adequately compensate Plaintiff.” Therefore, as the prevailing party, Young is entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(1).

Section 12-120(1) requires a prevailing party in an action pleading $35,000 or less to receive reasonable attorney fees, subject to the statute’s demand and tender conditions.

Ellis v. Ellis · filed 2020-06-09(1)

PDK is entitled to attorney fees on appeal as the prevailing party under section 12-120(1) because the criteria of the statute were satisfied before this case was filed in the magistrate court. Eighteen Mile Ranch, 141 Idaho at 721, 117 P.3d at 135.

Section 12-120(1) permits attorney-fee awards only in civil actions where the amount pleaded is $35,000 or less; it does not apply to purely equitable claims with no monetary claim.

Frost v. Gilbert · filed 2021-09-02(1)

Idaho Code section 12-120 allows for an award of attorney fees in certain civil actions. Subsection (1) requires that this action be one “where the amount pleaded is thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) or less.” I.C. § 12-120(1). ... The district court did not abuse its discretion in not addressing Idaho Code section 12-120 in its decision on attorney fees. This is because the district court concluded this section did not apply. ... The easement claims adjudicated by the district court below did not involve monetary claims. They were equitable in nature. The only resolution reached was on the equitable claims, i.e., the existence of an easement, and did not involve pecuniary claims. ... Accordingly, the district court appropriately declined to address Alford’s request for attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120 because there were no monetary claims involved in the bifurcated bench trial, and this was therefore not an abuse of discretion.

Section 12-120(1) mandates reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action where the amount pleaded is $35,000 or less, subject to the subsection's exceptions and plaintiff-demand conditions.

Sankey v. Ivey · filed 2023-08-30(1)

Here, the Sankeys pleaded damages in the amount of “$5,000 +” and filed a small claims action, thus limiting their recovery to no more than $5,000. Under the plain language of section 12-120(1), this Court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party. Inasmuch as the Owners and Managers are the prevailing parties, they are entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees for the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on an open account.

Alpine Packing Co. v. H.H. Keim Co. · filed 1991-12-20(3)

As prevailing party in this action Alpine is also entitled to attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3), providing for an award of attorney fees in a civil action to recover on an open account, to be calculated according to I.A.R. 41.

Section 12-120(3) provides a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in an action to recover on a guaranty.

Sinclair Oil Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation v. Forrest R. Schaefer Lynn F. Schaefer · filed 1993-11-02(3)

Sinclair and Schaefer request awards of their attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-120(3). The Idaho statute provides for a reasonable attorney fee to the prevailing party, in an action to recover on a guaranty. Idaho Code § 12-120(3) (1970). Sinclair also relies upon the express terms of the guaranty contract signed by Schaefer. The guaranty contract states that Schaefer guarantees payment of all expenses that may be incurred in enforcing any rights under the contract. (Appellant ER, Exhibit A). We grant Sinclair's requests for an attorney fee award. We also grant Sinclair's request for reversal of the district court's attorney fee award to Schaefer pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) allows the prevailing party to recover attorney’s fees in a civil action to recover on a note.

Student Loan Fund of Idaho, Inc. v. Duerner · filed 1997-12-30(3)

I.C. § 12-120(3) permits the recovery of attorney’s fees by the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a note. However, there are no issues on appeal related to S.L.F.I.’s action to recover on the promissory notes. The only issues on appeal relate to Duerner’s counterclaims for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the tort of defamation. As a result, Duerner is not entitled to attorney’s fees under I.C. § 12-120(3).

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

Eagle Water Co., Inc. v. Roundy Pole Fence Co., Inc. · filed 1999-08-03(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) mandates an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in any civil action to recover on an open account. So too, I.C. § 12-120(3) has been interpreted to authorize the award of attorney fees on appeal as well as at trial.

Section 12-120(3) mandates attorney fees for the prevailing party in an action arising from a civil action to recover on an open account and authorizes fees on appeal as well as at trial.

Eagle Water Co., Inc. v. Roundy Pole Fence Co., Inc. · filed 2000-08-01(3)

Section 12-120(3) of the Idaho Code mandates the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in any action arising out of civil action to recover on an open account. 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 when the gravamen of a declaratory judgment action is the right to recover on a promissory note.

Zener v. Velde · filed 2000-11-08(3)

Because the gravamen of the present action was the right to recover on a promissory note, we hold that the district court did not err in awarding attorney fees to Velde pursuant to 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 on a note.

Beard v. George · filed 2001-04-30(3)

(3) In any civil action to recover on [a] ... note ... 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) allows the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on an account stated to receive reasonable attorney fees set by the court.

Parrott Mechanical, Inc. v. Rude · filed 2003-10-30(3)

In any civil action to recover on an account stated, the general rule in Idaho is that the prevailing party may recover reasonable attorney fees as set by the court. Idaho Code § 12-120(3) (Michie 1998).

Section 12-120(3) allows attorney fees to a party that successfully defends an action to recover on a note.

Bream v. Benscoter · filed 2003-10-31(3)

Attorney fees are awardable under Idaho Code § 12-120(3) for successfully defending against an action to recover on a note.

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

Nelson v. Anderson Lumber Co. · filed 2004-05-24(3)

With respect to the first provision, it is not enough that the relationship between the parties relates to the purchase or sale of goods or services, the action itself must be one to recover on the contract. ... The Nelsons’ action was to recover on a contract and, therefore, the district court erred in denying attorney fees to Anderson, Wicher, and IBP pursuant to the first provision of I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) requires a reasonable attorney’s fee for the prevailing party in a civil action to recover on a note.

Ellmaker v. Tabor · filed 2015-02-26(3)

That statute provides, “In any civil action to recover on . . . [a] note . . . , the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as costs.” I.C. § 12-120(3). Mr. Tabor is therefore entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal.

Section 12-120(3) allows attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action to recover on an open account or note.

Wolford v. Montee · filed 2016-11-23(3)

Under section 12-120(3), attorney fees are allowable to the prevailing party “in any action to recover on an open account [or] note.” I.C. 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action to recover on an account, and subsection (1) is unavailable when subsection (3) applies.

Action Collection Service Inc. v. Heim · filed 2020-09-28(3); (1)

Action Collection sought to recover on an account created by the Heims’ dental expenses, triggering a potential award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3). Action Collection is the prevailing party and, as such, is entitled to costs under I.A.R. 40(a) and attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees for a civil action to recover on a promissory note, but not fees incurred after judgment to collect the judgment.

Allison v. John M. Biggs, Inc. · filed 1992-02-14(3)

Accordingly, while an award of pre-judgment attorney fees was made to Allison without objection, I.C. § 12-120(3) does not provide for a post-judgment award of attorney fees.

Section 12-120 permits a prevailing party's attorney-fee entitlement to mature anew when an amended judgment first awards fees.

Western World, Inc. v. Prater · filed 1992-02-27

The court should have recognized that the right to costs, and an award for attorney fees, would mature anew when an amended judgment was entered reflecting the court’s determination that Prater was entitled to an award for fees, under I.C. § 12-120.

Section 12-120(5) entitles a party who qualifies for fees under subsections (1) through (4) to post-judgment fees incurred while attempting to collect the judgment, including fees for an appeal arising from that collection effort.

Post v. Idaho Farmway, Inc. · filed 2001-03-01(5)

Idaho Code § 12-120(5) provides that: ... In the original action, the Corders were entitled to attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3). ... The Corders’ participation in this interpleader action is a result of their attempt to collect on the judgment in their original suit against Farmway. Therefore, the Corders are entitled to their attorney fees incurred as a result of this appeal.

Section 12-120(5) permits post-judgment attorney fees and costs for efforts to collect on a judgment, but not for pursuing an independent CIAP claim.

Griff, Inc. v. Curry Bean Co., Inc. · filed 2003-01-24(5)

Whether a CIAP claim is an attempt to collect on a judgment for purposes of I.C. § 12-120(5) presents an issue of law over which this Court exercises free review. ... The CIAP provides commodity producers an efficient means for recovering losses for breached storage obligations from failed bonded warehouses. It does not require a judgment against the warehouse, instead, the CIAP has its own administrative procedure to determine validity and value of claims. ... Therefore, Griffs CIAP action was independent, as opposed to derivative, of recovery on the judgment in this case. Because Griffs CIAP action was completely independent of the judgment in this case, the attorney fees incurred by Griff in pursuit of its CIAP claim were not “incurred in attempting to collect on the judgment.” I.C. § 12-120(5). Therefore, the district court’s award of post-judgment attorney fees to Griff pursuant to I.C! 12-120(5) is reversed.

Subsection (5) requires reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in reasonable post-judgment efforts to collect a judgment when the party was entitled to fees and costs in obtaining the judgment; it does not require the party to prevail completely on an exemption claim.

Action Collection Services, Inc. v. Bigham · filed 2008-06-27(5)

Section 12-120(5) does not contain a “prevailing party” standard and does not require a party to completely defeat a claim of exemption in order to be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in post-judgment attempts to collect on a judgment.

Section 12-120(5) allows judgment creditors to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in collecting on a judgment when fees were awarded in the underlying action for collection on an account.

Bianco ex rel. Estate of Gaston v. Erkins · filed 2009-08-06(5)

Adopting the interpretation of § 12-120(5) suggested by the Erkins would contravene the language and purpose of the statute, which makes clear that judgment creditors may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in collecting on a judgment when fees were awarded in the underlying action for collection on an account.

Section 12-120(5) does not require the party seeking postjudgment attorney fees and costs to have prevailed, and it permits fees for reasonable postjudgment efforts to collect a judgment, including appeals, when the party would have been entitled to fees under subsections (1) through (4) in the underlying proceeding.

Credit Bureau of Eastern Idaho, Inc. v. Lecheminant · filed 2010-06-18(5)

First, the district court erred in holding that a party must prevail in order to be awarded attorney fees and costs under I.C. § 12-120(5). Unlike other sections that expressly require a party to prevail in order to be awarded attorney fees and costs, I.C. § 12-120(5) includes no such requirement. ... Moreover, attorney fees and costs shall be awarded under I.C. § 12-120(5) because CBEI was entitled to reasonable attorney fees under subsection (1) and (3) in the underlying proceeding that resulted in the judgment. When attempting to collect on a judgment, a party may receive attorney fees and costs pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(5) if that party would have been awarded attorney fees and costs under subsection (1), (2), (3), or (4) in the underlying proceeding. Lastly, attorney fees and costs under I.C. § 12-120(5) may be awarded on appeal because the intermediate appeal to the district court and appeal to this Court were reasonable post-judgment attempts to collect on the judgment.

Section 12-120(5) permits an award of reasonable attorney fees for a reasonable post-judgment attempt to collect a judgment, including fees incurred on appeal.

IIB v. Frantz · filed 2019-05-10(5)

The Bank’s opposition to Frantz’s appeal constitutes a reasonable post-judgment attempt to collect on the judgment. For that reason, the Bank is entitled to reasonable attorney fees incurred on appeal under I.C. § 12-120(5).

Section 12-120(5) makes reasonable postjudgment attorney fees and costs mandatory when the party is already entitled to fees under subsection (1), (2), (3), or (4), including fees for reasonable efforts to collect a judgment such as defending prior collection efforts.

Safaris Unlimited, LLC v. Von Jones · filed 2021-12-02(5)

Once the district court determines a party is entitled to fees under 12-120(1), (2), (3), or (4), then section 12-120(5) provides that the award of postjudgment attorney fees is mandatory. ... Here, the district court awarded Safaris reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(5) and was, therefore, entitled to an award of fees for any post-judgment collection efforts. Contrary to Jones’s assertion, Safaris did not take new actions to collect on the judgment following Jones’s tender. Safaris’ fees resulted from Jones’s motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale, which required it to defend its prior collection efforts and, as such, constituted a continuation of its reasonable attempts to collect the amended judgment. We affirm the district court’s order granting Safaris its reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(5).

Section 12-120(5) makes postjudgment attorney fees mandatory when the party is entitled to fees under subsection (1), (2), (3), or (4), and covers reasonable efforts to defend prior collection efforts, including after a judgment tender and on appeal.

Safaris Unlimited, LLC v. Jones · filed 2021-12-02(5)

Once the district court determines a party is entitled to fees under 12-120(1), (2), (3), or (4), then section 12-120(5) provides that the award of postjudgment attorney fees is mandatory. ... Safaris’ fees resulted from Jones’s motion to set aside the sheriff’s sale, which required it to defend its prior collection efforts and, as such, constituted a continuation of its reasonable attempts to collect the amended judgment.

Subsection (5) allows reasonable postjudgment attorney fees and costs incurred to collect a judgment when fees are authorized under subsections (1)–(4), and subsection (3) allows a prevailing party reasonable attorney fees in qualifying commercial transactions.

Agriculture Services Inc. v. Freeland · filed 2025-04-09(5), (3)

The Supreme Court noted that I.C. § 12-120(5) specifically provides a mechanism for an aggrieved party to obtain post-judgment attorney fees. The Supreme Court concluded that a strict interpretation of the fourteen-day deadline in I.R.C.P. 54 would render I.C. § 12-120(5) a nullity and would be contrary to the purpose of the statute. The Supreme Court held that, “in order to collect post-judgment attorney fees, a party must request such fees within a reasonable time of incurring them. Because the district court erred in concluding the fourteen-day deadline applied to Bronco Elite’s request for post-judgment attorney fees, it abused its discretion in denying the request.” Bronco Elite, 172 Idaho at 529, 534 P.3d at 581. Thus, Freeland’s argument that the fourteen-day-time limit applies to AGI’s request for post-judgment costs and attorney fees fails. ... As the prevailing party on appeal, AGI is entitled to costs and to attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120(3).

For this action, the original version of § 12-120 applied, and it did not permit attorney-fee recovery because the damages sought exceeded $1,500.

Suitts v. First SEC. Bank of Idaho, NA · filed 1993-12-27

I.C. § 12-120 was subsequently amended several times, but because the amendments did not become effective until after this action was filed, they are not applicable to this case. ... Because the Suitts’ action was for damages exceeding $1,500, they are not entitled to recover attorney fees under § 12-120.

Section 12-120 permits an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party when the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less.

State, Bureau of Child Support v. Knowles · filed 1996-06-05

The Department requests attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. §§ 12-120 and 12-121. Attorney fees are awarded to the prevailing party under I.C. § 12-120 “where the amount pleaded is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.” In its complaint, the Department requested reimbursement from Knowles in the amount of $2,486, and payments to Chittock in the amount of $350 per month until Jessie reaches the age of 18, or, if Jessie continues her education after age 18, until Jessie discontinues her education or reaches the age of 19, “whichever is sooner.” The complaint also sought medical insurance for Jessie. Because we are not able to determine from the complaint whether the total reimbursement and support requested is $25,000 or less, we cannot award attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-120.

Section 12-120(1) awards reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party when the amount pleaded is less than $25,000, but a party who pleads no specific damages cannot recover fees under it.

Henderson v. Smith · filed 1996-04-04(1)

Under I.C. § 12-120(1), reasonable attorney fees are awarded to the prevailing party if the amount pleaded is less than $25,000.00. Henderson did not plead any specific amount of damages, which precludes an award of fees under this provision.

Sections 12-120(1) and (3) entitle the prevailing party to attorney fees, but the amount awarded is within the trial court’s discretion and may be overturned only for an abuse of discretion.

MEDICAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC v. Jones · filed 2007-12-10(1) and (3)

It is undisputed here that M.R.S. was entitled to fees in this case by terms of I.C. § 12-120(1) and (3). The amount to be awarded under that statute is within the trial court’s discretion and will not be overturned unless the party appealing the decision shows an abuse of discretion.

Section 12-120(1) mandates reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party in an action pleaded at $25,000 or less when the plaintiff satisfies the written-demand and pleading-notice requirements, and subsection (3)'s mandatory fee rule applies on appeal; an unutilized request to amend for unspecified punitive damages does not waive the entitlement.

Downey Chiropractic Clinic v. Nampa Restaurant Corp. · filed 1995-07-10(1) and (3)

Similarly, Downey’s unutilized prayer for leave to amend his complaint to seek unspecified punitive damages should not be construed as a waiver to his entitlement to attorney fees under this statute. ... By pleading actual damages of $1,118.00, including a prayer for attorney fees, and otherwise complying with the terms of I.C. § 12-120(1), Downey gave Liberty sufficient notice of the amount of his claim as well as his intent to seek attorney fees. Thus, the magistrate court’s award of attorney fees was proper. ... This Court has held that I.C. § 12-120(3) generally mandates an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party on appeal as well as at trial. ... In light of the fact that the language of both I.C. § 12-120(1) and I.C. § 12-120(3) is mandatory, the holding of Bott equally pertains here. Thus, Downey is entitled to an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party on appeal to the district court, pursuant'to I.C. § 12-120(1). Likewise, Downey is entitled to an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party on appeal to this Court.

Section 12-120(1) awards reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party when the amount pleaded is $25,000 or less; the amount pleaded, rather than the amount proved, controls.

Loftus v. Snake River School District · filed 1997-07-21(1)

In Pancoast, this Court held that “I.C. § 12-120(1) does not authorize the substitution of ‘the amount proved’ for ‘the amount pleaded.”' ... The amount plead in this case was clearly less than $25,000. ... As the prevailing party in this case, the District is entitled to attorney fees before the district court and on appeal under I.C. § 12-120(1).

Section 12-120 permits reasonable attorney fees as costs for a prevailing party in a civil action, but a generalized request without a specific asserted basis does not support an award.

Crea v. FMC Corporation · filed 2000-12-20

Idaho Code § 12-120 provides for reasonable attorney fees, calculated as costs, to be awarded to the prevailing party in a civil action. ... Because FMC provided the district court with no specific basis for awarding attorney fees, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to decline to award such fees.

Section 12-120 authorizes attorney fees in qualifying civil actions involving specified accounts, instruments, contracts for the sale of goods, or commercial transactions when the amount pleaded is less than $25,000, but not in an easement action.

Brown v. Marvin G. · filed 2004-07-08

Idaho Code § 12-120 provides that attorney fees shall be awarded in any civil action “to recover on an open account, account stated, note, bill, negotiable instrument, guaranty, or contract relating to the sale of goods ----and in any commercial transaction ...,” where the amount pled is less than $25,000. Because this case involves an easement, there is no basis for an award of fees under this statute and the district judge correctly denied the Browns’ request.

Section 12-120(3) requires the court to award the prevailing party attorney fees in a civil action to recover on a commercial transaction, but it does not authorize an arbitration panel to award them.

Moore v. Omnicare, Inc. · filed 2005-07-22(3)

Idaho Code § 12-120(3) provides that “the court” shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party “[i]n any civil action” to recover in a commercial transaction. ... The arbitration panel was neither a court nor a judge, and the arbitration proceedings were not a civil action. ... Statutes permitting or requiring a court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action do not authorize the award of attorney fees by an arbitration panel in arbitration proceedings.

Section 12-120(1) requires a written demand for payment at least ten days before the action begins to support an attorney-fee award.

Tapadeera, LLC v. Knowlton · filed 2012-06-29(1)

The request for attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(1) is also denied because Tapadeera did not make written demand for the payment of the claim “not less than ten (10) days before the commencement of the action.”

Section 12-120(1) requires a plaintiff seeking attorney fees to plead an amount of $35,000 or less and make a written demand for payment at least ten days before filing suit.

Keybank National Ass'n v. Pal I, LLC · filed 2013-10-03(1)

For I.C. § 12-120(1) to apply, the pleading must specifically allege that the amount pleaded does not exceed $35,000. See Mickelsen v. Broadway Ford, Inc., 153 Idaho 149, 156, 280 P.3d 176, 183 (2012). Furthermore, I.C. § 12-120(1) “requires the defendant to be notified of the plaintiff’s claim against defendant for at least ten days before a complaint can even be filed.” Cox v. Mueller, 125 Idaho 734, 737, 874 P.2d 545, 548 (1994). “This Court has held that I.C. § 12-120 mandates an award of attorney fees to the prevailing party on appeal as well as at trial.” Chavez v. Barrus, 146 Idaho 212, 225, 192 P.3d 1036, 1049 (2008). ... However, that letter was sent on April 28, 2010, and it did not contain a demand for payment of any sum. In fact, PAL did not actually have the Tri-Steel collateral sold until June 9, 2010, and it was not known until then how much money was at issue. Thus, KeyBank could not make a written demand for payment of its claim to the sale proceeds until after June 9. It did not make a demand for payment between that time and the time it commenced this suit and therefore it has not fulfilled the necessary statutory requirements to obtain a fee award under I.C. § 12-120(1).

Section 12-120(1) requires a claimant seeking attorney fees to make a written demand at least ten days before commencing the action.

Tapadeera, LLC v. Knowlton · filed 2012-06-29(1)

The request for attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(1) is also denied because Tapadeera did not make written demand for the payment of the claim “not less than ten (10) days before the commencement of the action.” I.C. § 12-120(1). “A civil action is commenced by the filing of a complaint with the court,” I.R.C.P. 3(a)(1), not by filing a second amended complaint.

Section 12-120(1) requires a reasonable attorney-fee award to the prevailing party in an action within the statutory amount cap; a plaintiff seeking fees must make a written demand at least ten days before suit.

MRS v. Bonneville Billing and Collections · filed 2014-08-21(1)

In this case, BBC was the prevailing party at the magistrate court level, making it eligible for attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(1). The amount pleaded in this case was very clearly $1,083.21, the sum of the three checks mistakenly sent to BBC by WSEC. We note that the notification requirement of Idaho Code section 12-120(1) is not at issue as to BBC in this case because BBC is the defendant. Thus, because BBC was the prevailing party, and the amount pleaded was less than the statutory cap, the district court erred by vacating the magistrate court’s award of attorney fees and by ordering the magistrate court to calculate a reasonable pre-appeal attorney fee award for MRS. ... In this case, BBC is the prevailing party on appeal, making it eligible for attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(1). Accordingly, we award BBC its attorney fees incurred on appeal before the Court of Appeals and this Court.

Section 12-120(3) does not authorize attorney fees in proceedings initiated by a petition for judicial review because such a proceeding is not a civil action commenced by a complaint.

S Bar Ranch v. Elmore County · filed 2022-06-14(3)

A petition for judicial review is not a civil action because it is not commenced by the filing of a complaint. In re Idaho Workers Comp. Bd., 167 Idaho 13, 24–25, 467 P.3d 377, 388–89 (2020). As such, sections 12-120(3) and 12-121 cannot be the basis to award fees in proceedings initiated by the filing of a petition for judicial review. Id. Therefore, we decline to award the Board attorney fees under sections 12-120(3) or 12-121 because those provisions are inapplicable to these proceedings.

Section 12-120 does not authorize an attorney-fee award in a workers’ compensation appeal because it is a civil-action fee provision.

Curr v. Curr · filed 1993-11-18

As to appellant Swafford’s claim, this Court has held that statutes and court rules providing for attorney fees in civil actions do not provide a basis for attorney fee awards in workers’ compensation appeals.

Section 12-120(3) permits a prevailing party to recover attorney fees in litigation based on a qualifying contract when the opposing party alleges such a contractual relationship, even if no contractual liability is established.

Farmers National Bank v. Shirey · filed 1994-06-20(3)

The district court properly awarded attorney fees pursuant to the I.C. § 12-120(3) provision which provides for the recovery of attorney fees incurred in litigation based upon any contract. Where a party alleges the existence of a contractual relationship of a type embraced by section 12-120(3), as the Shireys have done, that claim triggers the application of the statute and a prevailing party may recover fees even though no liability under a contract was established.

Section 12-120(3) permits the prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney fees in a civil action to recover on a contract relating to services when a qualifying contractual relationship is alleged, even if no contract liability is established.

Noak v. Idaho Department of Correction · filed 2012-01-06(3)

In this case, Noak alleged a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which sounds in contract. The complaint asserted that the covenant was implied into the employment agreement between Noak and PHS and that by virtue of that agreement the covenant was binding upon IDOC. Noak thus sought to recover against IDOC based on a contract relating to services. Such allegations triggered application of the contract prong of I.C. § 12-120(3). Noak misunderstands the essence of his claim, which he characterizes as something other than a contract claim, but that does not change the fact that Noak alleged a cause of action based upon a contract (even though he was not a party to that contract). Accordingly, IDOC, as the prevailing party, may recover fees.

Section 12-120(3) permits reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party in a civil action involving a contract-based commercial transaction, including an employment-contract action.

Nettleton v. Canyon Outdoor Media · filed 2017-12-21(3)

Alternatively, section 12-120(3) allows for the prevailing party in a civil action involving a commercial transaction based on a contract to be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. I.C. § 12-120(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).”

Section 12-120(3) applies only when a commercial transaction is the basis of the claim and occurred between the parties; a contract between them is not required.

Great Plains Equipment, Inc. v. Northwest Pipeline Corp. · filed 2001-10-31(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) permits attorney fees in a commercial-transaction action only when the transaction is integral to and forms the basis of the claim; it does not support fees when recovery is solely on unjust enrichment against a defendant not directly party to the transaction.

Hausam v. Schnabl · filed 1994-11-21(3)

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 to a matter of right in virtually every lawsuit filed. ... Here, Hausam sought recovery on several theories, but prevailed only on the equitable ground of unjust enrichment. The “commercial transaction” between Hausam and Wade Schnabl, to which John Schnabl was not directly a party, does not serve as the basis for Hausam’s recovery. ... Accordingly, we conclude that an award of attorney fees to Hausam on appeal under I.C. § 12-120(3) would not be proper.

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

Fmc Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. · filed 1996-08-08(3)

[T]he 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. ... We agree with the district court that the underlying case was based on the commercial transaction between FMC and Westinghouse. FMC purchased the tap changer which allegedly breached its warranties directly from Westinghouse and contracted with Westinghouse for engineering services related to the sale of the equipment. Furthermore, FMC only sought damages based on common law contracts and the U.C.C. Unlike the sale of defendant's chemical by a third party to the plaintiff in Brower, the commercial transaction between FMC and Westinghouse was "integral to the claim, and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover." Id.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees only when a commercial transaction is integral to the claim and forms the basis of recovery, not when it is merely remotely connected.

Sammis v. Magnetek, Inc. · filed 1997-06-05(3)

We have held that attorney’s fees are not warranted under this statute whenever a commercial transaction is remotely connected with the ease. Kelly v. Silverwood Estates, 127 Idaho 624, 631, 903 P.2d 1321, 1328 (1996). Instead, an award of fees is only appropriate where the commercial transaction comprises the gravamen of the suit, where “the commercial transaction is integral to the claim and constitutes the basis upon which the party is attempting to recover.” Id., 903 P.2d at 1328 (citation omitted). Although the Sammises’ based their claims against Cadet on two contractual theories (breach of express and implied warranties), the main thrust of their suit clearly sounded in tort, and the other two claims brought against Cadet (negligence and strict liability) reflect this focus. We therefore decline to award fees to Cadet under this statute.

Section 12-120(3) does not apply when commercial transactions are merely incidental to a property-rights dispute; the transaction must be integral to the claim and the basis for recovery.

Sun Valley Hot Springs Ranch, Inc. v. Kelsey · filed 1998-07-23(3)

While the loan-mortgage transaction and the sale of Lot 44 are commercial transactions as defined in I.C. § 12-120(3), they are incidental to SVHS’ claims. ... The present action is primarily a property dispute to determine ownership and easement rights and does not fall within the meaning of a commercial transaction in I.C. § 12-120(3). Therefore, the district court properly denied Kelsey and SVLM’s claim for attorney fees under this provision.

Section 12-120(3) permits prevailing-party attorney fees only in a civil action that seeks resolution of a dispute arising from a commercial transaction; it does not support a separate action solely to recover arbitration fees after the transaction dispute was resolved.

Storrer v. KIER CONSTRUCTION CORP. · filed 1997-02-19(3)

This analysis is also consistent with our prior decision clarifying the language of I.C. § 12-120 after the addition in 1986 of section 3. For purposes of allowing an award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3), we held that “a lawsuit still must seek resolution of a dispute arising from a commercial transaction between the parties.” ... Given that the breach of contract claim was redressed in the arbitration proceedings, the district court properly found that Storrer’s complaint did not deal with a “commercial transaction” as contemplated by I.C. § 12-120(3).

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

Walker v. American Cyanamid Co. · filed 1997-12-02(3)

This Court has adopted the following test to determine whether an award of attorney fees is warranted under the commercial transaction clause of I.C. § 12-120(3): [T]he 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. ... In the present case, the express warranties given to Walker by Cyanamid were part of a commercial transaction— Walker’s purchase of ASSERT. This commercial transaction was integral to Walker’s express warranty claims and is the basis upon which we have upheld the award of damages to Walker. Therefore, Walker’s claims for breach of the express warranty satisfy the “commercial transaction” requirement.

Section 12-120(3) authorizes attorney fees only when a commercial transaction constitutes the essential part of the lawsuit, not merely when a commercial transaction is connected to the case.

AG Services of America, Inc. v. Kechter · filed 2002-01-17(3)

Both parties request attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-120(3). They contend that this case involved a commercial transaction. The statute does not authorize the awarding of attorney fees every time a commercial transaction is connected with the case. ... The test is whether the commercial transaction constitutes the essential part of the lawsuit. ... Therefore, attorney fees cannot be awarded under Idaho Code § 12-120(3).

Section 12-120(3) allows attorney-fee recovery claim by claim when the gravamen of a claim is a commercial transaction, including an alternative quasi-contract claim based on the same transaction.

Sims v. Jacobson · filed 2015-02-02(3)

Thus, whether a party can recover attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3) depends on whether the gravamen of a claim is a commercial transaction. Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Nw. Pipeline Corp., 136 Idaho 466, 472, 36 P.3d 218, 224 (2001). In other words, courts analyze the gravamen claim by claim. Id.; See also Esser Elec. v. Lost River Ballistics Techs., Inc., 145 Idaho 912, 921, 188 P.3d 854, 863 (2008). A gravamen is “the material or significant part of a grievance or complaint.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 509 (10th ed. 1993). To determine whether the significant part of a claim is a commercial transaction, the court must analyze whether a commercial transaction (1) is integral to the claim and (2) constitutes the basis of the party’s theory of recovery on that claim. Great Plains, 136 Idaho at 471, 36 P.3d at 223. ... Further, Sims based his quantum meruit claim on the same commercial transaction, so the Jacobson group is entitled to attorney fees on that issue under Idaho Code section 12-120(3). Quantum meruit is not a contract claim, but “Idaho Code § 12-120(3) does not require that there be a contract between the parties before the statute is applied.” Great Plains, 136 Idaho at 472, 36 P.3d at 224. The statute only requires a commercial transaction. Id.