Decker v. Homeguard Systems

22 Citing cases

  1. Shurtliff v. Northwest Pools, Inc.

    120 Idaho 263 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 9 times

    The determination of who is a prevailing party, for purposes of receiving an award of attorney fees, is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Decker v. Homeguard Systems, 105 Idaho 158, 161, 666 P.2d 1169, 1172 (Ct.App. 1983); I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B). That determination will not be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion has occurred. Decker, 105 Idaho at 161, 666 P.2d at 1172; Chadderdon v. King, 104 Idaho 406, 411, 659 P.2d 160, 165 (Ct.App. 1983).

  2. Walton v. Hartford Ins. Co.

    120 Idaho 616 (Idaho 1991)   Cited 10 times
    Ruling that the Waltons were entitled to attorney fees under I.C. § 41-1839 because they were forced to sue Hartford after settlement negotiations had become hopelessly deadlocked

    According to Hartford's argument, under the insurance policy, each party was to pay its own expenses." The district court stood firm on its previous ruling, but then discussed Hartford's contention that the fees should be determined by time expended at an hourly rate, relying upon and citing to Nalen v. Jenkins (Nalen I), Nalen II, and to Decker v. Homeguard Sys., 105 Idaho 158, 666 P.2d 1169 (Ct.App. 1983). It observed from Decker that the prevailing plaintiffs were awarded fees in excess of what they would have paid under their contingent fee agreement, and quoted from Decker, 105 Idaho at 163, 666 P.2d at 1174:

  3. In re Morton

    Bankruptcy Case No. 08-40166-JDP, Adv. Proceeding No. 08-8046 (Bankr. D. Idaho Oct. 12, 2009)

    "The determination of who is a prevailing party in an action, for the purpose of receiving an award of attorney fees, is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." J.B. Constr., Inc. v. King (In re King), 09.1 I.B.C.R. 32, 33 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009) (citing Decker v. Homeguard Systems, 666 P.2d 1169, 1172 (Ct. App. Idaho 1983)). Such a determination should not be made on an individual claim-by-claim analysis, but rather from an overall view of the entire litigation.

  4. In re Sterling Mining Company

    Case No. 09-20178-TLM (Bankr. D. Idaho Aug. 21, 2009)   Cited 1 times
    In Sterling Mining, the lease required the tenant to pay “all ad valorem, property taxes, and other governmental charges applicable to the Property.

    JB Constr., Inc. v. King (In re King), 2009 WL 790160 at *2-3, 09.1 I.B.C.R. 32, 33 (Bankr. D. Idaho Mar. 23, 2009) (citing Id. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1)(B), (c)(1), and Decker v. Homeguard Sys., 666 P.2d 1169, 1172 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983). Despite the ability to apportion fees for a party" prevailing in part," the Court has also noted that it should take "an overall view, not a claim-by-claim analysis."

  5. In re King

    Bankruptcy Case No. 07-02042-JDP, Adv. Proceeding No. 08-6031 (Bankr. D. Idaho Mar. 23, 2009)

    The determination of who is a prevailing party in an action, for the purpose of receiving an award of attorney fees, is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Decker v. Homeguard Systems, 666 P.2d 1169, 1172 (Ct.App. Idaho 1983). In making that determination, the Court should consider the final judgment or result of the action in relation to the relief sought by the respective parties, and may determine that a party only prevailed in part and apportion fees accordingly.

  6. Zenner v. Holcomb

    147 Idaho 444 (Idaho 2009)   Cited 23 times
    Holding Idaho R. Civ. P. 54(e) is not applicable when the contract provides actual attorneys' fees because the rule conflicts with the terms of the contract

    Therefore, we hold that I.R.C.P. 54(e)(3) is inapplicable because it is inconsistent with the language of the contract. Lettunich v. Lettunich, 141 Idaho 425, 111 P.3d 110 (2005) (The contract clause failed to contain language that was required for actual attorney fees); Decker v. Homeguard Systems, 105 Idaho 158, 666 P.2d 1169 (Ct.App. 1983) (The statute in this case called for "reasonable" attorney fees). However, we caution that contractual language such as "its attorney fees" or "all attorney fees" does not give the prevailing party an unqualified right to unlimited attorney fees.

  7. Israel v. Leachman

    139 Idaho 24 (Idaho 2003)   Cited 20 times
    Affirming the district court's decision to not award attorney fees where the district court determined both parties prevailed in part

    The determination of who is a prevailing party, for the purpose of receiving an award of attorney fees, is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Decker v. Homeguard Systems, 105 Idaho 158, 666 P./2d 1169 (Ct.App. 1983). That determination will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. McCann v. McCann, 138 Idaho 228, 61 P.3d 585 (2002).

  8. Hettwer v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Idaho

    797 P.2d 81 (Idaho 1990)   Cited 12 times
    Explaining that insurance companies enjoy a significant bargaining advantage over insureds

    104 Idaho at 237, 657 P.2d at 1105. This rule was also followed in Decker v. Homeguard Systems, 105 Idaho 158, 666 P.2d 1169 (1983). In Etcheverry Sheep Company v. J.R. Simplot Company, 113 Idaho 15, 740 P.2d 57 (1987), this Court cited with approval the Court of Appeals decision in Scott v. Castle, 104 Idaho 719, 662 P.2d 1163 (1983), and awarded attorney fees in part because `the [appellant's] evidence argument presented no new legal standards or issues which could modify existing legal standards.' 113 Idaho at 19, 740 P.2d at 61.

  9. Turner v. Willis

    116 Idaho 682 (Idaho 1989)   Cited 16 times
    In Turner v. Willis, 116 Idaho 682, 778 P.2d 804 (1989) (Turner I), on principles of stare decisis the action which we took with regard to the district court's assessment and award of attorney fees was that the district court on remand would reconsider the award of attorney fees without extending any consideration to the settlement negotiations of the parties.

    " Rule 54(e)(1) requires a court finding that the nonprevailing party brought, pursued or defended the case "frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation." The trial court's award of attorney fees will not be reversed absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Decker v. Homeguard Systems, 105 Idaho 158, 163, 666 P.2d 1169 (1983); Futrell v. Martin, 100 Idaho 473, 479, 600 P.2d 777 (1979). The burden is on the party disputing the award to establish an abuse of discretion. Anderson v. Ethington, 103 Idaho 658, 660, 651 P.2d 923, 925 (1982).

  10. Brinkman v. Aid Ins. Co.

    115 Idaho 346 (Idaho 1988)   Cited 56 times
    Holding a proof of loss is sufficient when the insured provides the insurer with enough information to allow the insurer a reasonable opportunity to investigate and determine its liability

    It is that statutory phrase which causes analysis problems in the instant case. This case differs from most others considered by this Court, and differs substantially from those cases cited in the majority opinion, i.e., Decker v. Homeguard Systems, 105 Idaho 158, 666 P.2d 1169 (1983); Tanner v. Estate of Cobb, 101 Idaho 444, 614 P.2d 984 (1980); Futrell v. Martin, 100 Idaho 473, 600 P.2d 777 (1979); Craft Wall of Idaho, Inc. v. Stonebraker, 108 Idaho 704, 701 P.2d 324 (Ct.App. 1985). Those cases were all decided under statutes or rules of Court not involved in the instant case.