Idaho Code § 12-121

Section 12-121 leaves attorney fees to the district court’s discretion when an action is pursued frivolously or unreasonably; a fairly debatable issue supports denial of fees.

U.S. Bank National Ass'n N.D. v. Citimortgage, Inc. · filed 2014-10-29

The district court next considered the merits of U.S. Bank’s claims, noting that there was, “at a minimum, a fairly debatable issue as to whether the demand letter was ever delivered.” Thus, the district court acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to Idaho Code section 12-121, within the boundaries of its discretion, and through the exercise of reason. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying CitiMortgage’s request for fees under Idaho Code section 12-121.

Section 12-121 permits attorney fees only in extreme cases; good faith, nonfrivolous legal arguments and legitimate legal issues do not justify an award.

Energy Consulting & Management Solutions, LLC v. Western States Equipment Co. · filed 2014-05-21

The Idaho Supreme Court has repeatedly limited the applicability of § 12-121 to only the most extreme cases. ... Energy Consulting raised non-frivolous and good faith legal arguments to support its position in the district court. Further, Energy Consulting’s appeal presented legitimate legal issues. We therefore conclude that, although it was proper for the district court to consider Western States’s request for fees pursuant to § 12-121, the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees pursuant to § 12-121.

Section 12-121 allows attorney fees to a prevailing party when an appeal is brought or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

Loughmiller v. Gustafson · filed 2016-08-05

An award of attorney fees may be granted under I.C. § 12-121 and I.A.R. 41 to the prevailing party and such an award is appropriate when the court is left with the abiding belief that the appeal has been brought or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. Rendon v. Paskett, 126 Idaho 944, 945, 894 P.2d 775, 776 (Ct. App. 1995). In this case, there was no indication that Mark defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. Therefore, the magistrate did not err in failing to grant attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121 and I.A.R. 41.

Section 12-121 permits attorney fees when an action is brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation; a defense lacking those qualities does not support an award.

Clarke v. Latimer · filed 2018-06-26

In reverse order, section 12-121 allows for awards of fees when an action is brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. I.C. § 12-121. Nothing in the record indicates that Holly defended the Clarkes’ action frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

Section 12-121 permits reasonable attorney’s fees for a prevailing party when an action or appeal was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation; reasonably raised issues in a procedurally complex case do not meet that standard.

Smith v. Smith (In Re Estate of Smith) · filed 2018-12-18

Section 12-121 allows for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in cases that have been brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation. I.C. § 12-121. Although some of Vernon’s arguments on appeal misconstrue certain findings and conclusions of the magistrate court, other issues have been reasonably raised in an attempt to sort out a procedurally complex action. Given this, it cannot be said that this appeal was pursued frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation, and we will decline to award fees pursuant to section 12-121.

Section 12-121 permits attorney fees for a prevailing party when a case is brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

Smith v. Smith · filed 2020-10-05

Idaho Code section 12-121 authorizes an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party when the “case was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.” ... Accordingly, Wife is the prevailing party and she is entitled to an award of attorney fees.

Section 12-121 permits an attorney fee award to a prevailing party when the case was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

Tullett v. Pearce · filed 2021-08-27

An award of attorney fees may be granted under I.C. § 12-121 and I.A.R. 41 to the prevailing party when the court finds that the case was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. Because the Pearces prevailed against the LLC, we cannot say this case was pursued frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. Therefore, Todd Tullett’s request for attorney fees is denied.

Section 12-121 permits a court to deny attorney fees when the opposing party presented legitimate issues rather than pursuing the case frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

Frost v. Gilbert · filed 2021-09-02

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121. Bruno presented legitimate issues to the district court in this case.

Section 12-121 permits an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party when the case was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

Taylor v. Taylor · filed 2022-02-09

Under I.C. § 12- 121, a judge may award attorney fees to the prevailing party when the judge finds that the case was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. David asserts Wendy defended the second motion for summary judgment frivolously and without foundation because she did not sign the affidavit included with her response to the motion. The magistrate court’s finding that David failed to show that Wendy defended the motion frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation is supported by substantial and competent evidence.

Section 12-121 does not treat a losing argument as frivolous; a fee award requires a finding that the action was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously or unreasonably, or that its legal basis was without foundation.

Berglund v. Dix · filed 2022-06-06

Importantly, it must be remembered that Idaho Code section 12-121 does not equate a losing argument to a frivolous one. Rather, it requires that the manner in which an action was “brought, pursued or defended” to be so lacking as to be considered “frivolous and unreasonable.” Alternatively, it requires an express finding that the legal basis for a party’s handling of the case was so improper or lacking in legal merit that it could be fairly characterized as “without foundation.”

Section 12-121 permits attorney fees when a party brought, pursued, or defended a case frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation; an arguable challenge to a physician non-compete agreement does not meet that standard.

Blaskiewicz v. Spine Institute of Idaho · filed 2022-10-31

However, Blaskiewicz did not bring his suit frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. There is little law in Idaho as to the enforceability of physician non-compete agreements, and it was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation for Blaskiewicz to attempt to defend his livelihood. Therefore, we decline to award attorney fees to the Spine Institute under section 12-121.

Section 12-121 permits a court to award attorney fees to a prevailing party when the case was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation; complex legal questions can preclude an award.

Von Wandruszka v. City of Moscow · filed 2024-08-19

Idaho Code section 12-107 provides costs to the prevailing party, while section 12-121 gives a court discretion to award attorney fees “to the prevailing party” when it “finds that the case was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.” ... However, we do not agree with the Plaintiffs that the City brought or defended the respective appeals frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation. This case generated complex questions of municipal and contract law, and required clarification of our prior holding in City of Grangeville. Therefore, we decline to award attorney fees on appeal for these reasons.

Section 12-121 permits an attorney fee award when a party pursues a lawsuit frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation despite controlling authority and an opportunity to dismiss without incurring fees.

Foresee v. Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2025-06-02

Ultimately concluding that the argument for extending the law was not supported under the specific holdings in Wood or Pena, nor pursuant to the express offset language of the insurance policy, attorney fees were awarded under both I.C. § 41-1839(4) and I.C. § 12-121. ... Because Foresee pursued and maintained this lawsuit frivolously, unreasonably and without foundation by ignoring controlling authority and disregarding an opportunity to resolve the claim without incurring attorney fees, we affirm the district court’s award of attorney fees.

Section 12-121 permits reasonable attorney fees for a prevailing party when an action was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

Scofield · filed 2026-06-10

Thus, whether viewed through the lens of § 12-121 or the Court’s inherent authority to sanction bad-faith litigation conduct, the operative inquiry is largely the same: whether the action was brought, pursued, or defended in a manner that was frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, or otherwise indicative of bad faith.

Section 12-121 permits attorney fees only when an action was brought or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation, and the award is within the trial court’s discretion.

Soria v. Sierra Pacific Airlines, Inc. · filed 1986-08-26

An award of attorney’s fees is only proper when an action was either brought or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

An attorney fee award under § 12-121 based on a finding that a claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation cannot stand when the claim succeeds on appeal.

Indian Tribe v. Doe · filed 1993-03-19

The district judge also found that the tribe brought the appeal frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation and ordered the tribe to pay more than $8,500.00 in attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121. ... Because we find the trial court was incorrect in not applying ICWA to the proceedings in this case, we reverse the district judge’s award of attorney fees based on the district judge’s finding that the claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

Section 12-121 allows a discretionary attorney fee award when the nonprevailing party’s position is so plainly fallacious as to be frivolous; losing alone does not suffice.

Herbst v. Bothof Dairies, Inc. · filed 1986-05-30

An award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 is discretionary. The standard for determining whether such an award should be made is not whether the position urged by the nonprevailing party is ultimately found to be wrong, but whether it is so plainly fallacious as to be frivolous.

Section 12-121 does not support an attorney fee award for an entire action based on frivolousness when the petition was not frivolous when filed and no later frivolous portion was identified.

Rodgers v. Bennetts · filed 2019-11-22

The district court determined that Bennetts and Glick were the prevailing parties and were entitled to attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121 and, in the alternative, I.C. § 74-116(2). ... The district court did not parse out some portion of the litigation as having been “pursued” frivolously. Therefore, we look to the district court’s determination that the matter was brought frivolously. ... Under the circumstances, the filing of the petition was not frivolous. ... We hold that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the filing of the petition was frivolous. Accordingly, the district court’s award of attorney fees is vacated.

At the time of this decision, Section 12-121 made an attorney fee award discretionary with the trial court.

Cunningham v. Bundy · filed 1979-09-20

Attorney fees, although allowable at that time under I.C. § 12-121, were entirely discretionary with the trial court, and we are not persuaded that there was any abuse of that discretion.

Section 12-121 permits a trial court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action, and denial of fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Lewis v. Fletcher · filed 1980-09-09

The Lewises filed a cross appeal from the trial court’s denial of their request for attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121, which permits the trial court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in any civil action. The Lewises have not shown that the denial of fees constituted an abuse of discretion and we therefore affirm the district court’s denial.

An award of attorney fees under § 12-121 is discretionary, and denial is upheld absent a demonstrated abuse of discretion.

Tappen v. State, Department of Health & Welfare · filed 1982-02-19

The Department argues that it was entitled to attorney fees at the trial court level pursuant to I.C. § 12-121. ... The Department has failed to demonstrate and the record does not reveal that the district court abused its discretion by denying an award of attorney fees.

Before Rule 54(e) took effect, § 12-121 gave trial courts broad discretion to award attorney fees to prevailing parties.

T-Craft Aero Club, Inc. v. Blough · filed 1982-03-09

Prior to the effective date of Rule 54(e), I.C. § 12-121 gave the trial court broad discretion to award attorney fees to prevailing parties. The court entered judgment for the Club and awarded costs. It implicitly held the Club to be a prevailing party. Accordingly, we will not disturb the award of attorney fees under section 12-121.

Section 12-121 gives the trial court discretion to award attorney fees in an action filed before Rule 54(e) took effect, and the court may use that rule as a guide.

Barnes v. Hinton · filed 1982-09-13

The case must be remanded so that the trial court can decide, in the proper exercise of its discretion, whether to award attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121. Although on remand the trial court is not bound to apply Rule 54(e), the trial court is at liberty to follow the rule as a guide to the exercise of its discretion.

Section 12-121 gives the trial court discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to prevailing parties, and an award stands absent a clear showing that the court abused or failed to exercise that discretion.

City of Nampa v. McGee · filed 1982-12-27

I.C. § 12-121 provides in pertinent part: "the judge may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing ... parties ...." ... We find here no clear showing that the trial judge abused or failed to exercise his discretion.

Section 12-121 leaves the award of attorney fees to the trial court’s discretion, so a refusal to award them stands absent an abuse of discretion.

McBride v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 1983-10-27

On cross appeal, defendant respondents Ford and KPS both assert error in the trial court's refusal to grant their motions for attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 and mandatory costs under I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(C). We find no abuse of discretion in the court's refusal to award attorney fees, see I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) and Minich v. Gem State Developers, Inc., 99 Idaho 911, 591 P.2d 1078 (1979).

Section 12-121 leaves the decision to award attorney fees to the trial court’s discretion, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Goodwin v. Wulfenstein · filed 1984-10-31

The decision to grant or to deny attorney fees under section 12-121 is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. We will not overturn that determination unless an abuse of discretion is shown.

Section 12-121 leaves an attorney fee award to the trial court’s discretion, even when the opposing party fails to object to the fee request on time.

Long v. Hendricks · filed 1985-07-30

A failure to timely object, however, does not automatically entitle the prevailing party to the attorney fees requested. An award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 is discretionary with the trial court.

Section 12-121 makes an attorney’s fee award discretionary, and a party appealing a denial must show that the trial court abused its discretion.

Palmer v. Idaho Bank & Trust of Kooskia · filed 1979-12-04

This language makes such an award discretionary and an appellant disputing the denial of attorney’s fees would have to show an abuse of discretion by the lower court in denying those ... fees.

For actions filed before March 1, 1979, Section 12-121 leaves attorney fee awards to the trial court’s sound discretion, and a party challenging an award must show an abuse of discretion.

Anderson v. Ethington · filed 1982-09-29

Consequently, the decision to award attorney fees rests in the sound discretion of the trial court pursuant to I.C. § 12-121, which provides: "In any civil action, the judge may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party or parties, provided that this section shall not alter, repeal or amend any statute which otherwise provides for the award of attorney's fees." The award of attorney fees resting in the sound discretion of the trial court, the burden is on the person disputing the award to show an abuse of discretion.

Section 12-121 gives the trial court discretion to award attorney fees, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Duff v. Bonner Building Supply, Inc. · filed 1982-11-15

The award of attorney fees was within the discretion of the magistrate under I.C. § 12-121 and Bonner has failed to show an abuse of that discretion. We affirm the award.

For an action filed before March 1, 1979, the trial court may exercise its discretion to award attorney fees under § 12-121 without being bound by the criteria of I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1).

Jones v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. · filed 1983-10-04

The trial judge held that he could not exercise his discretion to award attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121. ... However, the judge was mistaken in believing he was bound to apply the criteria of rule 54(e)(1).

Section 12-121 permits a trial court to award attorney fees in its discretion; Rule 54(e)(1) does not limit that discretion in a case filed before the rule took effect unless the judge chooses to apply its standards.

Argonaut Insurance Companies v. Tri-West Construction Co. · filed 1984-11-21

An award of attorney fees could be made under I.C. § 12-121, within the discretion of the trial court. We note this case was filed prior to the effective date of rule 54(e)(1) I.R.C.P. Therefore, that rule does not impose any limitations upon the exercise of the judge’s discretion unless the judge chooses to apply the rule’s standards to this case.

Section 12-121 leaves trial attorney fee awards to the trial judge’s discretion, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Price v. Aztec Limited, Inc. · filed 1985-05-30

The award of attorney fees was within the discretion of the trial judge under I.C. § 12-121 and Aztec has failed to show an abuse of that discretion.

An award of attorney fees under § 12-121 requires the judge to exercise discretion even when the opposing party fails to object to the cost memorandum.

Operating Engineers Local Union 370 v. Goodwin Construction Co. · filed 1982-12-30

However, in all events, the order entered by the court must reflect the judge’s exercise of discretion as to those items which relate to attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 and to discretionary costs under Rule 54(d)(1)(D). Such awards do not become automatic simply because they are claimed and the opposing party fails to object.

Section 12-121 gives judges discretion to award attorney fees to a prevailing party in a civil suit; Rule 54(e)(1) limits that discretion based on the date the action was filed.

Cottonwood Elevator Co. v. Zenner · filed 1983-10-06

I.C. § 12-121 grants judges discretionary power to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in civil suits. The adoption of I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) restricted this discretionary power by requiring the court to find "that the case was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation" before awarding attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121. Rule 54(e) was adopted January 2, 1979, and became effective March 1, 1979. The trial judge entered judgment in this case on December 29, 1978, and awarded costs and attorney fees on July 20, 1979. The Zenners contend that I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) was applicable in this case because it became effective before the trial judge awarded attorney fees to the plaintiffs. This Court has consistently held that in determining whether I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) applies in a particular case, the relevant date is the date on which the cause of action was filed. Curtis v. DeAtley, 104 Idaho 787, 663 P.2d 1089 (1983); Quincy v. Joint School Dist. No. 41, 102 Idaho 764, 769-70, 640 P.2d 304, 309-10 (1981). Therefore, the standard imposed by I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) is not applicable in this case and the award of attorney fees was within the discretion of the trial court.

Section 12-121 permits a court deciding fees in an action filed before March 1, 1979, to use Rule 54(e)(1) as a discretionary guide, even though the rule does not bind the court in that action.

Chenery v. Agri-Lines Corp. · filed 1984-05-15

This statute allows a court to award attorney fees to any prevailing party in a civil action. However, our Supreme Court has qualified this discretionary authority by adopting I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) which provides that courts may only award attorney fees under § 12-121 where the action has been “brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.” ... The actions here were filed before March 1, 1979, and thus the court was not bound to apply rule 54(e)(1). The record discloses, however, that the district judge decided to apply the rule “within the discretionary power of the Court.” This was a proper exercise of the district court’s discretion.

For actions filed before March 1, 1979, § 12-121 gives the trial court discretion to award attorney fees without the limitations of I.R.C.P. 54(e).

Pichon v. L.J. Broekemeier, Inc. · filed 1985-06-28

The trial court incorrectly assumed that he was bound by the rule, when in fact his exercise of discretion in considering an award of fees under I.C. § 12-121 was not subject to the limitations of that rule.

Section 12-121 permits a discretionary fee award to a prevailing party when the opponent litigated frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation; the court may consider settlement negotiations, but a failure to negotiate alone does not justify fees.

Sigdestad v. Gold · filed 1984-05-31

Awards of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 are discretionary. In order to receive a discretionary award, a litigant must be “prevailing party.” In addition the trial judge must make a finding under I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) that the nonprevailing party brought, pursued or defended the case “frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.” ... A mere finding that the nonprevailing party failed to negotiate in good faith is not, by itself, sufficient. Second, a district court is not precluded from considering pretrial settlement negotiations in determining whether the criteria of Rule 54(e)(1) have been established.

Section 12-121 does not allow attorney fees merely because a party misperceives the law; the party’s position must be so plainly fallacious that it is frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.

Wing v. Amalgamated Sugar Co. · filed 1984-05-31

A misperception of law or of one’s interest under the law is not, by itself, unreasonable conduct. If it were, virtually every case controlled by a question of law would entail an attorney fee award against the losing party under I.C. § 12-121. Rather, the question must be whether the position adopted by the owner was not only incorrect but so plainly fallacious that it could be deemed frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation.

Section 12-121 permits attorney fees only when the trial court finds the case was defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation and gives written reasons for the award.

Kerr Land & Livestock, Inc. v. Glaus · filed 1984-11-08

Attorney fees may be awarded under I.C. § 12-121 only if the trial court finds the case was defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation and makes a written finding as to the basis and reasons for awarding attorney fees.

Section 12-121 permits a discretionary trial court award of attorney fees for a frivolous or unreasonable defense, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Etcheverry Sheep Co. v. J.R. Simplot Co. · filed 1987-07-01

Under § 12-121 and I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1), the trial court has discretion to award attorney's fees. This discretion will not be overturned absent a showing of abuse. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding fees to Etcheverry.

An appellate court reviewing an attorney fee award under § 12-121 determines whether substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding.

Thompson v. Pike · filed 1991-08-01

On review of an award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 and I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1), the function of the appellate court is not to engage in fact finding, but rather only to determine if the trial court’s finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

An award of attorney fees under § 12-121 is within the trial court’s discretion and is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Ireland v. Ireland · filed 1993-06-09

The decision to award attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 and I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) is within the sound discretion of the trial court.

A district court’s decision to award attorney fees under § 12-121 is discretionary and is reversed only for abuse of discretion.

Lawrence v. Jones · filed 1993-11-17

The decision whether to award attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, and to overturn such a decision requires a conclusion by the appellate court that the district court abused its discretion.

Section 12-121 permits an attorney fee award only when the action was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

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

Attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 may be awarded by the court only when it finds, from the facts presented to it, that the case was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.

An attorney fee award under § 12-121 is reviewed for substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s finding.

Lunn v. Lunn · filed 1994-02-03

Our function on appeal of an award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 and I.R.C.P. 54 is to review the trial court’s finding to determine if it is supported by the record. ... In determining whether a finding is supported by the record, we look to see if there is substantial evidence to support the finding.

Section 12-121 makes an attorney fee award discretionary, subject to reversal only for abuse of discretion.

Cameron v. Neal · filed 1997-12-18

An award of attorney fees under I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) and I.C. § 12-121 is discretionary and is subject to reversal only upon a showing of abuse of discretion.

An award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-121 is discretionary and is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Zaleha v. Rosholt, Robertson & Tucker, Chtd. · filed 1998-03-11

An award of attorney fees pursuant to section 12-121 of the Idaho Code (I.C.) is discretionary and is subject to review and vacation only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion.

An award of attorney fees under § 12-121 is discretionary, but the award must rest on findings supported by the record.

Conley v. Whittlesey · filed 1999-08-12

An award under I.C. § 12-121 is discretionary; but it must be supported by findings and those findings, in turn, must be supported by the record.

An award of trial-level attorney fees under § 12-121 is reviewed for whether the trial court recognized its discretion, stayed within its bounds and applicable legal standards, and reached its decision through reason.

Anderson v. Larsen · filed 2001-10-24

Appellate review of an award for attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 at the trial level is conducted by applying the three-part test explained in Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc., v. Idaho Power Company, 119 Idaho 87, 803 P.2d 993 (1991). The sequence of our inquiry is: (1) whether the trial court perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.

Section 12-121 makes attorney fee awards discretionary and requires findings supported by the record.

Hunt v. Hunt · filed 2002-03-12

An award under I.C. § 12-121 is discretionary; but it must be supported by findings and those findings, in turn, must be supported by the record.

Section 12-121 makes an attorney fee award discretionary and requires findings supported by the record.

Wait v. Leavell Cattle, Inc. · filed 2001-12-26

An award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-121 is discretionary; but it must be supported by findings and those findings, in turn, must be supported by the record.

An award of attorney’s fees under Idaho Code § 12-121 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Nelson-Ricks Cheese Co., Inc. v. Lakeview Cheese Co., LLC · filed 2019-08-21

Award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), and Idaho Code § 12-121 is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Section 12-121 applies to an attorney fee award when judgment is entered after the statute takes effect, even if the underlying contract predates it.

Wheeler v. McIntyre · filed 1979-06-21

And as to the award of attorney fees, I.C. § 12-121 was applicable here because the judgment was entered subsequent to the effective date of the statute.

Section 12-121 makes attorney fee awards discretionary, and a denial is affirmed absent an abuse of discretion.

County of Ada v. Red Steer Drive-Ins of Nevada, Inc. · filed 1980-04-03

Since an award of attorney’s fees is discretionary with the court, I.C. § 12-121; I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) (effective March 1, 1979), and Red Steer has failed to show an abuse of discretion by the lower court in its denial of attorney’s fees, the district court’s denial is accordingly affirmed.

An award of attorney fees to a prevailing party under § 12-121 is reviewed for abuse of the district court’s discretion.

Faw v. Greenwood · filed 1980-07-17

The respondents prevailed below both in defending against the appellants’ claim and in pursuing their own counterclaim. The appellants have not shown that the award made in this case constituted an abuse of the district court’s discretion, and the award is therefore affirmed.

Under the version of § 12-121 applicable to an action filed in 1976, the trial court had discretion to award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

White v. Rehn · filed 1982-04-15

At the time this action was filed, November 1976, I.C. § 12-121 provided that: "In any civil action, the judge may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party ..." The award of attorney fees was within the discretion of the trial court and appellant has failed to show an abuse of that discretion.

Section 12-121 leaves trial-level attorney fee awards to the trial court’s discretion, while the appellate court independently decides whether an appeal warrants fees for being frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.

Everett v. Trunnell · filed 1983-11-09

The award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 and I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) at the trial level is a matter within the trial court's discretion. ... We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's failure to award attorney fees at trial. However, how the trial court exercised his discretion below is not controlling on this Court's determination of whether or not this appeal was brought frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation.

An award of attorney fees under § 12-121 requires findings supported by the record.

Hackett v. Streeter · filed 1985-10-03

However, an award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 must be supported by findings which must, in turn, be supported by the record.

Section 12-121 did not warrant attorney fees for the Board’s defense of its regulation in this case.

Lindstrom v. District Board of Health Panhandle District I · filed 1985-10-25

Neither are we persuaded that attorney fees should have been awarded under I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 may support attorney fees for a claim that arose before its enactment but was tried afterward because the fee provision is remedial and procedural.

Buckalew v. City of Grangeville · filed 1979-09-21

The City next argues that the trial court erred in awarding Buckalew attorney’s fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121 since that statute was not in force at the time the complaint was filed. ... Jensen v. Shank, 99 Idaho 565, 566, 567, 585 P.2d 1276, 1277 (1978), has now settled the matter: ... The application of I.C. § 12-121 to a claim for relief which arose prior to the enactment of that section but tried after the section became law is not an improper retroactive application of that section since we view its provision as remedial and procedural and not as affecting the substantive claim for relief.

Section 12-121 applies retroactively to allow an award of attorney fees in a civil action.

Idaho Quarterhorse Breeders Ass'n v. Ada County Fair Board · filed 1980-06-03

Plaintiffs-appellants finally argued that the trial court erred in allowing defendants-respondents attorney fees through the retroactive application of I.C. § 12-121. We disagree.

Section 12-121 applies to attorney-fee awards when trial occurs after its enactment, even if the amended complaint was filed earlier.

Neilsen & Co. v. Cassia & Twin Falls County Joint Class a School District 151 · filed 1982-06-22

The School District contests this award on the ground that I.C. § 12 — 121 was not enacted until after the amended complaint in this action was filed. This is correct. ... The trial in this action took place in October, 1979, after enactment of § 12-121. Therefore, I.C. § 12-121 was applicable.

For actions filed before March 1, 1979, § 12-121 allowed a discretionary attorney fee award to the prevailing party without the later rule’s frivolousness limitation.

Newman v. Associated Systems, Inc. · filed 1985-01-04

I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) prevents a trial judge from awarding attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 unless the case was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation. However, this rule is inapplicable to an action filed prior to March 1, 1979. ... Because this action was filed in December, 1978, the trial court could award attorney fees to the prevailing party in its discretion, without the limitations now stated in the rule.

For cases filed before March 1, 1979, § 12-121 gave the district court broad discretion to award attorney fees without finding that the case was defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.

R.T. Nahas Co. v. Hulet · filed 1988-02-03

This case was filed before March 1, 1979, the effective date of I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1). Thus, an award of fees under I.C. § 12-121 was not contingent upon a finding that the case was defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation. Standing alone I.C. § 12-121 gave the district court broad discretion to award attorney fees.

Section 12-121 permits a discretionary attorney-fee award even when the prevailing party was represented by its insurer.

Futrell v. Martin · filed 1979-09-20

Appellants also assert that respondents should not be awarded attorney fees at the trial level because respondents did not incur any attorney fees inasmuch as they were represented by their insurance company. We find no merit in this position. The purpose of I.C. § 12-121 was in proper cases to impose the actual costs of litigation on the unsuccessful parties, in the court’s discretion.

An attorney fee award under Idaho Code § 12-121 may be included as costs.

Roper v. Elkhorn at Sun Valley · filed 1980-02-01

However, this Court has held that an attorney fee award made pursuant to I.C. § 12-121 may properly be included as costs.

Section 12-121 permits an award of attorney fees for successfully defending an action even when section 12-120(2) does not authorize fees for that defense.

Torix v. Allred · filed 1980-02-20

An award of attorney fees to the respondents for successfully defending against the appellant's action cannot be based on I.C. § 12-120(2), but nevertheless was proper under I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 permits, but does not require, a court to apportion attorney fees among frivolous and legitimate claims; the court may assess the case as a whole when deciding whether its fee standard is met.

Fitzpatrick v. Kent · filed 2020-02-21

The Kents are correct that attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121 may be apportioned, in that a district court may award fees for frivolous claims or issues while declining to award them in connection with legitimate ones. Galvin v. City of Middleton, 164 Idaho 642, 648, 434 P.3d 817, 823 (2019). Additionally, it is no longer enough for non-prevailing party to have raised a single legitimate issue in order to be immunized from attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121. Id. However, a district court is not required to apportion fees. Courts take a holistic view to determine whether the standard under Idaho Code section 12-121 has been met.

Section 12-121 does not apply to attorney fees awarded to prevailing parties on appeals from the small claims department, which are governed by the specific $25 limit in section 1-2311.

Huff v. Uhl · filed 1982-06-18

Consequently, we conclude that I.C. § 12-121’s general award of attorney fees is inconsistent with the more specific provision of I.C. § 1-2311 in regard to awarding attorney fees to prevailing parties in an appeal from the small claims department, and that I.C. § 12-121 is therefore not applicable to the award of attorney fees on such appeals.

Section 12-121 does not govern attorney fees in tort claims covered by the more specific fee restrictions of § 6-918A.

Packard v. Joint School District No. 171 · filed 1983-04-05

It has been argued that I.C. § 12-121, which broadly authorizes a discretionary award of attorney fees “in any civil case,” should be applied here. We disagree. Section 6-918A, which specifically relates to tort claims, was added to the Idaho Tort Claims Act in 1978 — two years after the enactment of § 12-121 in 1976. ... We hold that § 6-918A governs this case.

Idaho Code § 12-121 applies to civil actions and does not authorize attorney fees in criminal actions.

Application of Robison · filed 1985-02-05

I.C. § 12-120 and § 12-121 apply to civil actions. Robison’s case was a criminal action, to which those statutes do not apply.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees in tort claim actions governed exclusively by Idaho Code § 6-918A.

Kent v. Pence · filed 1989-05-04

Idaho Code § 12-121 contains no express and specific language providing an exception to the exclusive scope of I.C. § 6-918A. Therefore, I.C. § 12-121 yields to I.C. § 6-918A in tort claim cases.

Section 12-121 yields to the later, more specific attorney-fee standard in § 6-918A for tort claims against the government.

Tomich v. City of Pocatello · filed 1995-08-23

To the extent of any conflict between I.C. § 12-121 and I.C. § 6-918A, we apply I.C. § 6-918A. It is not only the later statute, but also a more specific statement of the legislature's intent about the award of attorney fees in tort claims cases.

Section 12-121 does not support an attorney fee award against a state agency under the private attorney general doctrine; § 12-117 supplies the governing standard.

Roe Ex Rel. Roe v. Harris · filed 1996-05-21

Therefore, we must first address whether there is a conflict between I.C. § 12-117 and the private attorney general doctrine, which draws its viability from I.C. § 12-121. If the question were simply a conflict between I.C. §§ 12-121 and -117, the latter would prevail. ... This legislative intent causes us to rule that the private attorney general doctrine is not available as the basis for an award of attorney fees in a case against a state agency.

Section 12-121 does not provide attorney fees against a state agency when section 12-117 governs the agency’s action.

Idaho Watersheds Project, Inc. v. State Board of Land Commissioners · filed 1996-06-20

The Board is an “agency” and the test is one of its “reasonableness” in its action under I.C. § 12-117 to the exclusion of I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 authorizes attorney fees for a prevailing party and supplies the statutory basis for the private attorney general doctrine.

State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc. · filed 1997-09-10

The private attorney general doctrine arises from the authority in I.C. § 12-121 for a court to award attorney fees to a prevailing party.

Section 12-121 permits denial of the State’s request for attorney fees and costs on a capital defendant’s post-conviction appeal even when some claims are barred or poorly supported, because a fee award could chill defense counsel from pursuing arguably meritorious relief.

State v. Creech · filed 1998-08-19

The State claims that it is entitled to an award of attorneys and costs pursuant to I.C. § 12-121 and I.A.R. 40 and 41. ... While we agree with the State that certain of Creech’s issues presented in his petition for post-conviction relief are barred by res judicata, lack citation to legal authority and the record, and merely present eonclusory statements, this Court has never assessed attorney fees and costs against a capital defendant and we decline to do so now. Such a decision could have a chilling effect on defense counsel, virtually all of whom are public defenders or court appointed. When a defendant is faced with the death penalty, the most serious of punishments, he or she should be allowed to exhaust every arguably meritorious possibility for relief. Thus, we hold that the State is not entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs.

Section 12-121 does not govern attorney fees in actions under the Idaho Tort Claims Act; section 6-918A controls those awards.

Kolar v. Cassia County Idaho · filed 2005-12-28

Burley Highway District correctly points out in its response brief that awards of attorney fees in eases pursued under the tort claims act are controlled by I.C. § 6-918A, not I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees when § 12-117 applies, because § 12-117 is the exclusive means of awarding fees for the entities it covers.

Potlatch Education Ass'n v. Potlatch School District No. 285 · filed 2010-02-03

The School District also requests attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121, which permits fee awards to prevailing parties in "any civil action." This request is denied because I.C. § 12-117 is the exclusive means for awarding attorney fees for the entities to which it applies.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees for a school district where § 12-117 applies, because § 12-117 is the exclusive means of awarding fees to covered entities.

Potlach Education Association and Doug Richards v. Potlach School District No. 285 · filed 2010-02-03

The School District also requests attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121, which permits fee awards to prevailing parties in “any civil action.” This request is denied because I.C. § 12-117 is the exclusive means for awarding attorney fees for the entities to which it applies.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees when § 12-117 applies to a proceeding involving a political subdivision, because § 12-117 is the exclusive authority for fees in that proceeding.

Bettwieser v. New York Irrigation District · filed 2013-02-22

As explained, in cases where § 12-117 applies, that section is the exclusive authority for awarding attorney fees. Thus, because the District is not entitled to fees under § 12-121 and has provided neither citation nor argument supporting its entitlement under § 12-117, we hold that the District is not entitled to attorney fees under either section 12-121 or 12-117.

Section 12-121 may allow attorney fees to a sheriff pursuing a salary claim.

La Brosse v. Board of Commissioners · filed 1983-12-05

However, I.C. § 12-121 applies, and may allow attorney fees to the sheriff.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees on appeal in a worker’s compensation case because the appeal is not a civil action.

Garcia v. J.R. Simplot Co. · filed 1989-03-28

We also conclude that we have no authority to award attorney fees against ISIF on appeal under I.C. § 12-121 and I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) as we may in civil actions.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees against an unsuccessful claimant in a worker's compensation appeal because it applies to civil actions.

Swanson v. Kraft, Inc. · filed 1989-06-07

I.C. § 12-121 (1988 Supp.) and I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1) (1987) do not apply to worker's compensation cases, since they provide for the award of attorney fees to a prevailing party in civil actions.

Section 12-121 does not apply to workers’ compensation cases because it authorizes attorney fees for a prevailing party in a civil action.

Kinney v. Tupperware Co. · filed 1990-05-17

I.C. § 12-121 (1988 Supp.) and I.R. C.P. 54(e)(1) (1987) do not apply to worker’s compensation cases, since they provide for the award of attorney fees to a prevailing party in civil action.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees for an appeal from a county zoning commission decision because that proceeding is not a civil action commenced by filing a complaint.

Lowery v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 1990-06-15

However, I.C. § 12-121 does not apply in this case. ... These proceedings do not constitute a " civil action, " " commenced " by the filing of a complaint as required by Rule 3(a) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure.

Section 12-121 does not allow attorney fees in an appeal from an agency decision because that appeal is not begun by a complaint filed in a court action.

Knight v. Department of Insurance · filed 1991-03-27

However, attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 are not available to parties in an appeal from an agency decision.

Section 12-121 allows attorney fees for proceedings arising from a civil action, but not for proceedings arising from an administrative case.

Foster v. City of St. Anthony · filed 1992-10-28

We first point out that I.C. § 12-121 allows for an award of attorney fees in civil actions, but not in administrative cases.

Section 12-121 applies only to civil actions begun by filing a complaint and does not authorize attorney fees for a claim for unemployment benefits.

Scrivner v. Service IDA Corp. · filed 1995-05-22

I.C. § 12-121 only pertains to civil actions which are commenced by the filing of a complaint. A claim for unemployment benefits is not such an action. Thus, Scrivner’s claim for attorney fees on appeal is inappropriate.

Section 12-121 applies to attorney fees in civil actions, not administrative proceedings.

Idaho Potato Commission v. Russet Valley Produce, Inc. · filed 1995-10-11

I.C. § 12-121 is inapplicable, because it pertains to civil actions not administrative proceedings.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees for a district court appeal from an administrative hearing officer because that proceeding is not a civil action.

McCoy v. State, Department of Health & Welfare · filed 1995-12-05

This section provides that “in any civil action,” the judge may award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees. McCoy brought this matter before the district court on appeal from the hearing officer’s decision. That proceeding does not constitute a “civil action” as defined by I.R.C.P. 3(a) and attorney fees are, therefore, not available under I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees in unemployment compensation cases because a claim for benefits is not a civil action.

Johnson v. Idaho Central Credit Union · filed 1995-12-18

A claim for unemployment benefits is therefore not a civil action and attorney fees cannot be awarded pursuant to I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees for an appeal to district court under the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act because that appeal is not a civil action.

University of Utah Hospital v. Board of Commissioners · filed 1996-04-30

The county requests fees, presumably under Idaho Code Section 12-121. That provision provides that, “in any civil action,” the judge may award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees. An appeal to the district court under the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act does not constitute a “civil action” as defined by I.R.C.P. 3(a). ... Attorney fees are, therefore, not available to the county under I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees for appeals from administrative rulings because those appeals are not civil actions.

Northwest Pipeline Corp. v. State, Dept. of Employment · filed 1996-12-13

Appeals from administrative rulings are not “civil actions” for purposes of I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees in unemployment compensation cases because a benefits claim is not a civil action commenced by filing a complaint.

Reedy v. M.H. King Co. · filed 1996-07-25

The Court concluded that because a claim for unemployment benefits is not a civil action commenced by the filing of a complaint, attorney fees cannot be awarded under I.C. § 12-121. Id. Thus, we hold that Reedy is not entitled to fees in this case.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees on appeal from an IPUC order because the proceeding is not commenced by a complaint filed in a court action.

Eagle Water Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission · filed 1997-07-08

Attorney fees are not available under I.C. § 12-121 in an appeal from an order of the IPUC because this type of case is not commenced by a complaint filed in a court action as required by I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees for an appeal from an agency decision because that appeal is not a civil action commenced by filing a complaint.

Allen v. Blaine County · filed 1998-02-04

Attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 are not available to parties in an appeal from an agency decision because it is not “a civil action ... commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees in an appeal from a Personnel Commission decision because that proceeding is not a civil action commenced by filing a complaint.

Sanchez v. State · filed 2006-08-08

Here, the matter before the district court was a decision of the Commission made pursuant to the appeals provisions of the Personnel System Act and brought before the district court by the filing of an appeal. Like the proceedings in Lowery, these proceedings do not constitute a civil action commenced by the filing of a complaint as required by Rule 3(a). See id. at 1082, 793 P.2d at 1254. Consequently, we conclude the Commission correctly ruled it did not have authority under I.C. § 12-121 to award fees in this proceeding.

Section 12-121 authorizes attorney fees in civil actions but does not apply to workers’ compensation cases because they are not civil actions.

Bradford v. Roche Moving & Storage, Inc. · filed 2009-07-07

Employer 2 also requests attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-121. That statute authorizes the award of attorney fees in “any civil action.” It does not apply to worker‟s compensation cases because they are not civil actions.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees in worker’s compensation appeals because those cases are not civil actions.

Clark v. Shari's Management Corp · filed 2013-11-27

Although Respondents have prevailed and advanced argument, the statute upon which they rely, I.C. § 12-121, does not apply to this appeal because worker’s compensation cases are not civil actions.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees on an appeal from the Industrial Commission.

Serrano v. Four Seasons Framing · filed 2014-08-22

“Because the present action comes to this Court on an appeal from the Industrial Commission, the Defendants cannot be granted attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-121.”

Section 12-121 requires a written finding stating the basis and reasons for an attorney fee award, and the record must support the award.

Davis v. Professional Business Services, Inc. · filed 1985-12-16

Where attorney's fees are awarded pursuant to I.C. § 12-121, a written finding is required setting out the basis and reasons for doing so. Here the court stated only: "From all the facts presented in this case I find that this case was defended frivolously, unreasonably and without foundation." (R., at 325-26). We are not persuaded that the record supports an award of attorney's fees.

An award of attorney fees under § 12-121 is discretionary but requires findings supported by the record.

Sunshine Mining Co. v. Metropolitan Mines Corp. · filed 1986-09-25

An award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 is discretionary; but it must be supported by findings and those findings, in turn, must be supported by the record.

Section 12-121 permits attorney fees only when the case was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation, and an award requires written findings stating its basis and reasons.

Needs v. Idaho State Department of Correction · filed 1988-12-30

Rule 54(e)(1) provides that attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 may be awarded only when the court finds that the case was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation. Additionally, Rule 54(e)(2) requires the court — whenever an award of fees is made pursuant to I.C. § 12-121 — to make a written finding, either in the award or in a separate document, as to the basis and reasons for awarding such fees.

Section 12-121 requires a specific finding supported by the record that the case was pursued unreasonably and without foundation before attorney fees may be awarded.

Severson v. Hermann · filed 1989-07-19

To appropriately grant attorney’s fees, a specific finding must be made and supported by the record that the case was pursued unreasonably and without foundation.

Section 12-121 requires the trial court to make the necessary findings before awarding attorney fees on the ground that an action was pursued frivolously.

Pancoast v. Indian Cove Irrigation District · filed 1992-03-24

Indian Cove also requested the trial court to award attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121 on the ground that Pancoast brought and pursued the action frivolously. The trial court did not make the necessary findings to support an award of attorney fees under this statute.

Section 12-121 does not support a trial-level attorney fee award when a binding appellate ruling has found that the same issues were not pursued frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

Peralta v. Peralta · filed 1993-04-02

The district court recognized that its first decision dealt with the issue of attorney fees on appeal, but it correctly noted that the issues on appeal were basically the same issues presented to the trial court, dealing with whether Idaho had jurisdiction to hear this custody matter. ... we agree with the district court that the magistrate’s award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121, as limited by I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1), was improper.

Section 12-121 supports an attorney fee award only if the court finds that the action was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.

Noble v. Fisher · filed 1995-04-17

In this case, neither the magistrate nor the district court made a finding that Noble’s defense or cross-motion to modify were brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation. Accordingly, the awards of attorney fees to Fisher cannot rest on I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 permits a judge to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in a civil action when the case was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.

Bagley v. Thomason · filed 2010-10-07

The district court awarded Bagleys attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-121, which permits the judge in any civil action to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. A trial court can award attorney fees under that statute “only when it finds, from the facts presented to it, that the case was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.” ... Therefore, we affirm the award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-121.

Section 12-121 commits a prevailing party’s attorney fee request to the discretion of the court at each level of a proceeding, requiring a ruling on a request left unresolved below.

Taylor v. Taylor · filed 2013-12-06

Because the decision of whether to award attorney fees to a prevailing party under I.C. § 12-121 is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the court at each level of a proceeding, and because Michael is the prevailing party as a result of the magistrate’s grant of his motion for summary judgment, the case must be remanded to allow the magistrate to rule on Michael’s request for attorney fees.

Objections to an attorney fee award under § 12-121 are waived if no timely objection to the memorandum of costs is filed.

Conner v. Dake · filed 1982-09-03

In the proceedings below, judgment was entered against the appellants, and included an award of attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121. ... Respondents assert and the record reflects that no objection to respondents' memorandum of costs was ever filed. [1] Appellants thereby waived their right to further contest the award of attorney fees. I.R.C.P. 54(e)(6) and 54(d)(6).

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees for a party appealing an agency decision.

Staff of the Idaho Real Estate Commission v. Nordling · filed 2001-03-29

Nordling also claims she should be awarded attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121. Attorney fees are not available to a party on appeal from an agency decision under this section.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees on appeal from an agency decision.

Brett v. ELEVENTH STREET DOCKOWNER'S ASS'N · filed 2005-05-03

However, attorney fees are not available to a party on appeal from an agency decision under I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees on appeals from administrative agency rulings.

Curtis v. M.H. King Co. · filed 2005-12-30

The statute in question does not, however, provide authority for an award of attorney fees on appeals from administrative agency rulings.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees on appeals from administrative agency rulings.

Cheung v. Pena · filed 2006-05-03

The statute in question does not, however, provide authority for an award of attorney fees on appeals from administrative agency rulings.

Idaho Code § 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees on appeals from administrative agency rulings.

Allen v. Reynolds · filed 2008-06-06

However, this Court has ruled that I.C. § 12-121 does not provide authority for an award of attorney fees on appeals from administrative agency rulings.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees on appeal from an Industrial Commission decision.

Fonseca v. Corral Agriculture, Inc. · filed 2014-03-19

This is an appeal from the Commission. Accordingly, Corral cannot be granted attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 applies to a state-law claim in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding and permits reasonable attorney fees for the prevailing party.

Wiggins v. Peachtree Settlement Funding (In Re Wiggins) · filed 2001-09-21

In addition, the Court concludes this action is also subject to Idaho Code § 12-121, which provides, “[i]n any civil action, the judge may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party or parties, provided that this section shall not alter, repeal or amend any statute which otherwise provides for the award of attorney’s fees.” Under either Idaho Code § 48-608(4) or Idaho Code § 12-121, recovery of fees and costs is allowed by the prevailing party in proper circumstances.

Section 12-121 does not apply to a bankruptcy proceeding whose dismissal rests on federal procedural and jurisdictional law.

Reynard v. Karass (In re Saito Bros. Inc.) · filed 2016-10-27

Accordingly, state law including Idaho Code § 12-121 does not apply.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney’s fees in a bankruptcy dischargeability action when the underlying claim’s validity and amount are not litigated and the fee request rests on conduct during the action.

Lin v. Hunt · filed 2022-03-16

Because the validity of Plaintiffs’ underlying creditors’ claim was not litigated in this action, but only whether that claim should be excepted from discharge under the Code, and because the award of attorney’s fees sought here is based on the Plaintiffs’ or their attorney’s conduct in the litigation, Defendants cannot recover attorney’s fees under Idaho Code § 12-121.

Section 12-121 supplies authority for attorney fee awards in litigation involving a decedent’s estate.

Matter of Estate of Kunzler · filed 1985-09-30

The co-appellants have invited our attention to cases in other jurisdictions where attorney fee awards against decedents' estates have been denied. However, those cases appear simply to hold that attorney fees are not awardable to prevailing litigants absent authority conferred by statute or contract. In this case, unlike those cited by the co-appellants, such authority is furnished by I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 authorizes attorney fees only in civil actions, excluding appeals from Personnel Commission decisions.

Horne v. Idaho State University · filed 2003-04-24

Because this appeal from the decision of the Personnel Commission is not a civil action, § 12-121 does not apply to this action.

Section 12-121 allows attorney fees only in a civil action; a petition for judicial review of an administrative decision is not a civil action.

Krempasky v. Nez Perce County Planning & Zoning · filed 2010-12-20

A party can only be awarded attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 in a “civil action.” I.C. § 12-121. This is a petition for judicial review from an administrative decision and thus is not a civil action.

Section 12-121 permits attorney fees only in a civil action filed by complaint in court; an appeal from an agency decision is not a civil action.

Idaho Power Co. v. Idaho Public Utilities Commission · filed 2013-12-18

That statute has no application to this case. It only applies in “any civil action,” which is an action by filing a complaint in court as required by Rule 3(a) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. Lowery v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Ada Cnty., 117 Idaho 1079, 1082, 793 P.2d 1251, 1254 (1990). An appeal from an agency decision is not a civil action.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees in disputes between insureds and insurers arising under insurance policies because sections 41-1839 and 12-123 provide the exclusive statutory fee remedy.

Trinity Universal Insurance v. Kirsling · filed 2003-07-02

We also deny Marco’s request for fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121 because I.C. §§ 41-1839 and 12-123 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.” I.C. § 41-1839(4). Thus, I.C. § 12-121 is inapplicable to this case.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney fees in an insurer-insured dispute arising under an insurance policy because § 41-1839(4) makes other fee remedies exclusive.

Villa Highlands, LLC v. Western Community Insurance · filed 2010-02-09

Although Western Community has prevailed in this appeal, I.C. § 41-1839(4) precludes an award of attorney fees under either I.C. 12-120(3) or I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 does not warrant attorney fees when a party’s legal arguments are supported by a good faith argument to extend or modify Idaho law and are not plainly fallacious or frivolous.

Edmondson v. Shearer Lumber Products · filed 2003-07-23

We decline to award attorney fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121, based on our conclusion that plaintiff's legal arguments were not so plainly fallacious as to be deemed frivolous, where it was supported by a good faith argument for the extension or modification of the law in Idaho.

Section 12-121 does not allow an attorney fee award when the losing party presented a legitimate issue of law.

Joyce Livestock Co. v. United States · filed 2007-02-09

There was at least one legitimate issue of law presented in this case. We had not previously addressed whether instream water rights in water sources not located on the appropriator’s land could be appurtenant to the appropriator’s real property. The district court therefore did not err in denying Joyce Livestock’s request for attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-121.

Section 12-121 does not permit an attorney fee award when the suit presents a nonfrivolous claim.

Sec. Investor Fund LLC v. Crumb · filed 2019-05-23

Security's suit was not frivolous, and therefore an award of attorney fees to Crumb under Idaho Code section 12-121 would be inappropriate.

Section 12-121 permits fees to a prevailing party when a case was brought, pursued, or defended frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation; a losing claim is not frivolous when its resolution was not obvious.

Gammel v. Kuna Rural Fire Protection District · filed 2021-11-05

For the reasons outlined above, the resolution of these issues was not so obvious that Plaintiff’s state law contract claim can be called frivolous. Defendants are not entitled, therefore, to fees under I.C. § 12-121.

Section 12-121 permits a fee award for claims grounded in settled law when the district court reasonably finds that their factual support is lacking.

Severinsen v. Tueller · filed 2024-11-08

Both claims are grounded in straightforward Idaho law, and neither raised an issue of first impression. In awarding fees to the Tuellers under Idaho Code section 12-121, the district court properly recognized and acted within its discretion in evaluating Severinsen’s claims. As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the Tuellers under Idaho Code section 12-121.

Section 12-121 does not support an attorney fee award when the case raises important and fairly debatable issues of law.

Kenworth Sales v. Skinner Trucking · filed 2019-12-11

There was nothing frivolous about Kenworth’s appeal. It raised important and fairly debatable issues of law. Therefore, we uphold the district court’s determination that Skinner is not entitled to attorney fees under section 12-121.

Section 12-121 attorney fees on appeal should be denied when the appeal presents issues of first impression rather than settled law.

Purco Fleet Services, Inc. v. Idaho State Department of Finance · filed 2004-04-29

The Department requests attorney fees pursuant to I.A.R. 41 and I.C. § 12-121. ... These are issues of first impression for this Court. A case of first impression does not constitute an area of settled law; therefore, the request for attorney fees should be denied.

Section 12-121 does not support an award of attorney fees on appeal when the appeal addresses significant issues of first impression in Idaho.

Wright v. Wright · filed 1998-01-07

However, the appeal addressed significant issues of first impression in Idaho. There is no basis to award attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 to the Wrights.

Section 12-121 does not warrant appellate attorney fees when an appeal presents a question of first impression rather than being frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

Noreen v. PRICE DEVELOPMENT CO. · filed 2001-05-23

Price requests a grant of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-121. Such an award may be made when this Court is left “with the abiding belief that the appeal was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.” I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1). ... Noreen’s appeal cannot be so characterized. She has presented a question of first impression as to the ramifications of a violation of the Assumed Business Names Act. Accordingly, we decline to award attorney fees on appeal.

Section 12-121 permits attorney's fees on appeal when the appeal applies settled law to the facts, but an issue of first impression does not qualify.

KIDD ISLAND BAY WATER USERS CO-OP. ASS'N, INC. v. Miller · filed 2001-12-26

Defendants cite I.C. § 12-121, which allows for an attorney's fees award when an appeal is based upon the application of settled law to the facts. This is simply not the case here. The central issue of this appeal, the interpretation of the phrase "commitments made" found in I.C. § 30-3-41(2), is one of first impression for this Court. A case of first impression does not constitute an area of settled law; therefore, Defendants' claim for attorney's fees is denied.

Section 12-121 does not authorize attorney’s fees on appeal under the settled-law rationale when the central issue is one of first impression.

Kidd Island Bay Water Users Cooperative Ass'n v. Miller · filed 2001-12-26

Defendants cite I.C. § 12-121, which allows for an attorney’s fees award when an appeal is based upon the application of settled law to the facts. This is simply not the case here. The central issue of this appeal, the interpretation of the phrase “commitments made” found in I.C. § 30-3-41(2), is one of first impression for this Court. A ease of first impression does not constitute an area of settled law; therefore, Defendants’ claim for attorney’s fees is denied.

Section 12-121 does not support appellate attorney fees when the appeal concerns a previously unsettled question of law, because the appeal is not frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.

Stewart v. Stewart · filed 2007-01-26

"Reasonable attorney's fees will only be awarded to the prevailing party under I.C. § 12-121 when the court is left with the abiding belief that the appeal was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably and without foundation." Balderson v. Balderson, 127 Idaho 48, 54, 896 P.2d 956, 962 (1995) (internal quotations omitted). The previously unsettled state of the law on the characterization of professional goodwill makes an award of attorneys fees under § 12-121 inappropriate.