party was the prevailing party and whether the prevailing party was entitled to attorney fees. See Hutchins v. State , 100 Idaho 661, 603 P.2d 995 (1979) ("After a general reversal, a trial court is free to correct any error in its original findings and conclusions as to matters not passed on by the appellate court."); see also J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics Int'l , 130 Idaho 255, 257, 939 P.2d 574, 576 (1997) (Where this Court did not pass on the question of whether a party was or was not entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party, the district court had jurisdiction to determine the prevailing party and award attorney fees accordingly.); see alsoHummer v. Evans , 132 Idaho 830, 833, 979 P.2d 1188, 1191 (1999) (Where the reversal of a verdict in an appeal changed the prevailing party, the district judge had jurisdiction to address any issue, like attorney fees, that was related to the result in the appeal.). The decision in Great Plains I changed the prevailing party.

Great Plains Equip., Inc. v. Nw. Pipeline Corp., 136 Idaho 466, 474, 36 P.3d 218, 226 (2001) (noting that when an appeal changes the prevailing party, and this Court does not pass on the question of pre-appeal attorney fees and costs, the trial court has "jurisdiction to make post-appeal determinations concerning costs which were otherwise unresolved"); see also Hummer v. Evans, 132 Idaho 830, 833, 979 P.2d 1188, 1191 (1999) ( "[O]ur reversal of the verdict in [Chemetics ] changed the prevailing party and thus granted the district judge jurisdiction to address any issue, like attorney fees, that was related to the result in the appeal."). We find Chemetics instructive.

"This Court has interpreted I.C. § 12-120(3) to mandate the award of attorney fees on appeal as well as at trial." Hummer v. Evans, 132 Idaho 830, 833, 979 P.2d 1188, 1191 (1999) (citing J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics International, Inc., 130 Idaho 255, 258, 939 P.2d 574, 577 (1997)). Because the district court's order is affirmed in its entirety, this Court also award attorney fees on appeal to KeyBank.

The district court held that due to this Court's reversal of the original district court ruling in Great Plains I, it had jurisdiction to make a determination of what party was the prevailing party and whether the prevailing party was entitled to attorney fees. See Hutchins v. State, 100 Idaho 661, 603 P.2d 995 (1979) ("After a general reversal, a trial court is free to correct any error in its original findings and conclusions as to matters not passed on by the appellate court."); see also J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics Int'l, 130 Idaho 255, 257, 939 P.2d 574, 576 (1997) (Where this Court did not pass on the question of whether a party was or was not entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party, the district court had jurisdiction to determine the prevailing party and award attorney fees accordingly.); see also Hummer v. Evans, 132 Idaho 830, 833, 979 P.2d 1188, 1191 (1999) (Where the reversal of a verdict in an appeal changed the prevailing party, the district judge had jurisdiction to address any issue, like attorney fees, that was related to the result in the appeal.). The decision in Great Plains I charged the prevailing party.

The State also argues that this was a matter subsidiary to the action to be taken on remand because this Court had addressed only the question of whether B osier was entitled to reinstatement of his probation, not a question of whether his sentence would run consecutive to others if that probation was violated. We are not persuaded. If on remand a trial court is tasked with only the ministerial act of entering an amended judgment to comply with an appellate decision, that court does not have the power to "revisit discretionary issues of the case," and such remand does "not open the door for the [court] to address substantive issues in the case" as those issues are not subsidiary to such ministerial act. Hummer v. Evans, 132 Idaho 830, 833, 979 P.2d 1188, 1191 (1999). Ordering the reinstatement of Bosier's original probation — a specific direction that placed the parties in precisely the same position that they occupied before Bosier's probation was revoked — called for only a ministerial act. Altering the concurrent nature of the sentence was not subsidiary to that task. Whether a sentence runs concurrently with or consecutive to another sentence is a discretionary decision for the trial court, see I.C. § 18-308, and is a substantive sentencing issue. See Mendenhall, 106 Idaho at 393, 679 P.2d at 670.