BURDICK, Chief Justice.
This appeal arose out of the Bingham County district court's decision affirming the magistrate court's order granting Michelle Campbell relief on her breach of contract claim. This case stems from an employment offer Parkway Surgery Center, LLC (Parkway) made to Campbell. That employment offer included assurances that Parkway would "take care of" a loan Campbell had with her previous employer, Bingham Memorial Hospital (BMH). When Parkway refused to pay the obligation as promised, Campbell filed suit for a breach of contract. Following a bench trial, the magistrate court ruled in favor of Campbell and awarded her damages in the amount of the loan plus interest. Parkway appealed to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate's order, but remanded to the magistrate court to reform the judgment to grant Campbell specific performance. Parkway appealed to this Court.
On appeal, Parkway makes several arguments, including that the district court erred when it (1) affirmed the magistrate court's order; (2) determined Campbell was entitled to specific performance; (3) determined the statute of frauds did not apply in this case; and (4) awarded attorney fees to Campbell. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Michelle Campbell was employed by BMH in Blackfoot, Idaho. On June 25, 2002, the BMH Foundation (the Foundation) offered, and Campbell accepted, a "Tuition Scholarship" in the form of a Forgivable Loan Agreement (the loan). Under the terms of the loan, the Foundation gave Campbell
In the Spring of 2003, individuals associated with Parkway contacted Campbell and asked her if she would be interested in joining the nursing staff at Parkway. Campbell expressed interest in the proposal on the condition that Parkway would satisfy Campbell's loan from the Foundation. Around May 1, 2003, at a board meeting, Parkway's Board of Directors instructed its agents, Arthur McCracken and Nanette Hirschi, to offer Campbell a nursing position at Parkway. The Board of Directors also informed the two agents that Parkway would "take care of" Campbell's obligation to the Foundation. The Board of Directors did not mention any restrictions or further conditions other than Campbell accept employment with Parkway. A second board meeting was held during the first week in May of 2003, where McCracken, Hirschi, and Campbell were present. At that meeting, Parkway offered Campbell a position with Parkway's nursing staff. Campbell expressed concern about her financial obligation to the Foundation if she were to leave her employment with BMH. McCracken assured her in general terms that the loan would be taken care of with no further conditions or restrictions relating to the payment of that obligation. Campbell subsequently accepted Parkway's offer of employment under those conditions, tendered her resignation to BMH, and began work for Parkway in May of 2003.
In February of 2005, Campbell learned that Parkway did not pay off the loan to the Foundation as promised. At that time, Campbell allegedly received a telephone call asking her to repay the loan because she was in default. Campbell subsequently sent a demand letter to Parkway requesting Parkway fulfill its promise. When Parkway refused to pay off the loan to the Foundation, Campbell brought suit against Parkway.
The magistrate court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 31, 2012, granting Campbell relief on her breach of contract claim and dismissing all counterclaims and cross-claims. The magistrate court ruled that Parkway's offer of employment to Campbell, which included the promise to pay Campbell's debt to the Foundation, was a binding contract between Parkway and Campbell. The court concluded that "there appears to have been a clear `meeting of the minds' [] on the matter with a clear intent on the part of both contracting parties (Parkway, through its agents, and Ms. Campbell) to create a legally binding and enforceable relationship." The magistrate court went on to rule that because Parkway refused to pay Campbell's debt as promised, Parkway breached its contractual obligation to Campbell. Consequently, the magistrate court ordered Parkway to pay Campbell $6,800.00 plus any accumulated interest. The court ordered Parkway to make the payment directly to Campbell, noting that it assumed Campbell would tender the amount to the Foundation to extinguish her loan obligation to them and to rehabilitate her reputation in the medical community. Parkway appealed that decision.
The district court remanded the case back to the magistrate court because it determined that the magistrate court had not addressed all the claims for relief the parties asserted in the cause of action. The district court directed the magistrate court to enter amended findings of fact and conclusions of law dealing with the omitted claims, which included breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference with contract, and constructive fraud claims. On remand, the magistrate court denied all three claims as unsupported by the facts, and entered its second amended judgment on November 27, 2013, to reflect those rulings. Campbell then filed a cross-appeal, and Parkway filed a Notice of Continuing Appeal.
On April 16, 2014, the district court entered its Decision and Order on Appeal, which affirmed the breach of contract claim but remanded the case to the magistrate court to reform the judgment to grant Campbell specific performance. The district court
When this Court reviews the decision of a district court sitting in its appellate capacity, the standard of review is as follows:
Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855, 858-59, 303 P.3d 214, 217-18 (2013) quoting Bailey v. Bailey, 153 Idaho 526, 529, 284 P.3d 970, 973 (2012). Thus, this Court does not review the magistrate court's decision directly. Id. at 859, 303 P.3d at 218. Instead, we are procedurally bound to affirm or reverse the district court's decision. Id. This Court exercises free review over questions of law. In re Estate of Peterson, 157 Idaho 827, 830, 340 P.3d 1143, 1146 (2014).
On appeal, Parkway argues that the district court erred when it affirmed the magistrate court's decision in favor of Campbell on her breach of contract claim and when it ordered the magistrate to reform the judgment to grant Campbell specific performance. Parkway also asserts that the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court's award of attorney fees to Campbell and that the district court erred in awarding attorney fees to Campbell on appeal. Both parties request attorney fees on this appeal. We address each issue in turn.
Parkway asserts several groundless arguments as to why the district court erred when it affirmed the magistrate court's decision in favor of Campbell on her breach of contract claim. First, Parkway asserts that Campbell did not have standing to litigate the breach of contract claim. Second, Parkway argues that Campbell received the "benefit of her bargain" with Parkway and therefore did not suffer any injury. Finally, Parkway argues that the district court erred in concluding that the statute of frauds did not apply in this case.
Parkway asserts that Campbell did not have standing in this matter because she has not suffered a distinct and palpable injury and because she is asserting claims of a third party. Campbell argues that Parkway either waived or should be estopped from asserting standing on this appeal because Parkway did not raise the issue below.
Generally, this Court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223, 227, 91 P.3d 1127, 1131 (2004). However, because the issue of standing is jurisdictional, it can be raised at any time, including for the first
In Young v. City of Ketchum, this Court noted:
137 Idaho 102, 104-105, 44 P.3d 1157, 1159-1160 (2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Thus, to satisfy the requirement of standing, a litigant "must allege or demonstrate a distinct palpable injury in fact; that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and that there is a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury." Arambarri, 152 Idaho at 738, 274 P.3d at 1253. This Court has defined the term "palpable" as "[e]asily perceptible, plain, obvious, readily visible, noticeable, patent, distinct, manifest." Martin v. Camas Cnty. ex rel. Bd. Comm'rs, 150 Idaho 508, 513 n. 3, 248 P.3d 1243, 1248 n. 3 (2011) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary, 1110 (6th ed.1990)).
Parkway contends that it never actually damaged Campbell because she testified at trial that she had never received a demand letter from the Foundation or paid anything to the Foundation on her loan obligation. Parkway asserts this testimony is fatal to her standing because she has failed to show a "distinct and palpable injury." Parkway cites to Bergkamp v. Martin, 114 Idaho 650, 653, 759 P.2d 941, 944 (Ct.App.1988), to support its argument and asserts that under established principles of contract law, a party cannot bring suit for breach of contract when the party has not been injured.
The parties do not contest the magistrate court's finding that Parkway had an oral agreement with Campbell to "take care" of the loan. Nor do the parties contest the magistrate court's conclusion that the agreement created an enforceable third-party beneficiary contract. Because Campbell was a party to that contract, Campbell had standing to sue Parkway for its failure to follow through on its promise.
Parkway argues that the district court erred when it concluded that Campbell did not receive the benefit of the bargain. Parkway asserts that the agreement between it and Campbell was simply that the loan obligation would be "taken care of," and remarkably, Parkway contends that the language "taken care of" does not necessarily mean that Parkway agreed to pay off Campbell's loan. Instead, Parkway argues that language meant it could deal with the debt however it wanted, including "paying the amount immediately, paying the obligation in installment payments, negotiating a compromise settlement of the obligation, off-setting the amount against another debt, or simply waiting to see if the Foundation elected to pursue an action under its contract." Parkway then absurdly asserts that it "took care of" the obligation by declining to pay and waiting to see if the Foundation would enforce the obligation. But Parkway does not stop there. Parkway then irrationally reasons that by "taking care" of the obligation in this way, Campbell received the benefit of the bargain because she has not paid anything to the Foundation nor has she been required to do so. Remarkably, Parkway therefore reasons that Campbell received precisely what she bargained for: to be relieved of her loan obligation to the Foundation. Consequently, Parkway asserts there was no breach of any contractual terms between Campbell and Parkway. Parkway concludes that Campbell could only look to her own expectation that she would bear no liability on the obligation, which is precisely the "benefit" she received.
Campbell argues this assertion is just one example of Parkway's shifting attempts to avoid its obligation to Campbell, and that substantial and competent evidence in the record supports the magistrate's finding of fact that by promising to "take care of" the loan obligation, Parkway agreed to pay it. We agree.
The district court also saw through Parkway's absurd argument. Although the district
Furthermore, letters that both the Director of Nursing and the Administrator/CFO wrote indicate Parkway understood that it was to pay Campbell's loan obligation to the Foundation. Indeed, Hirschi's letter states that Hirschi "made [Parkway] aware of the scholarship that would have to be paid for [Campbell], to entice her to come." The letter further states that "when [Campbell's] scholarship came up, [Parkway] informed [Campbell that it] was aware of this and it was agreed that [Campbell's] scholarship would be paid off in full by Parkway Surgery Center." Similarly, McCracken's letter stated that "in efforts to attract and capture [Campbell's] commitment ... [Parkway] had offered repayment of any penalty caused by breach of [Campbell's] contract with [the Foundation]," and that the obligation "would be met and satisfied in full by Parkway Surgery Center." Campbell also testified that the agreement with Parkway was that Parkway would pay Campbell's loan obligation.
Given the substantial and competent evidence showing that both parties understood that "taking care of" Campbell's loan meant Parkway would pay for the loan, this Court is astonished that Parkway would attempt to argue on appeal that Campbell received "the benefit of her bargain." Such an argument is, at a minimum, baseless and disingenuous. The district court correctly pointed out that Parkway failed to present evidence as to any actions that Parkway actually took to "take care of" the debt as promised. Indeed, it is undisputed that Parkway did not pay the loan obligation to Campbell or to the Foundation. Thus, Campbell has not received the benefit of the bargain and the district court did not err in so holding.
Parkway argues that the statute of frauds applies to the oral agreement between itself and Campbell and that because Campbell failed to put the agreement in writing, it was unenforceable. Once again, Parkway disregards well-established law.
Idaho Code section 9-505 requires certain agreements to be in writing to be enforceable. It states, in relevant part:
Idaho Code section 9-506 lists exceptions to the general rule that agreements must be in writing to be enforceable. Relevant to this appeal, Idaho Code section 9-506(3) provides:
Applying these principles, both the magistrate court and the district court concluded that the statute of frauds did not apply in this case. We agree. The agreement between Parkway and Campbell undoubtedly falls under Idaho Code section 9-506(3) as an exception to the statute of frauds. Parkway made an offer of employment to Campbell, which included a promise that Parkway would take care of Campbell's loan obligation to the Foundation if Campbell would come to work for Parkway. Parkway then obtained a direct benefit from making that promise to Campbell: Campbell quit her job at BMH to work for Parkway. Indeed, testimony from the record indicates that the benefit of having Campbell come work for Parkway was what drove the initial promise. In fact, Parkway's Director of Nursing, Nanette Hirschi, testified "I remember one of them — I don't remember which one — saying `well, we need to do whatever — whatever we need to do to get [Campbell].'" Thus, it is clear that Parkway obtained a benefit from the promise it made to Campbell; it secured an employee it apparently felt was worth doing whatever it took to get. Because Parkway's promise to answer for Campbell's loan obligation directly benefited Parkway, the promise falls under Idaho Code section 9-506(3) as an exception to the statute of frauds.
Parkway does not stop there. Parkway also argues that even if the above exception to the statute of frauds applies, Campbell was unable to enforce the promise because Parkway became the original obligor on the debt to the Foundation, and Campbell became a non-party to the agreement. Specifically, Parkway asserts, "[b]y promising to take care of Campbell's debt to the Foundation, the Idaho statute of frauds makes the obligation Parkway's own new original obligation." Parkway contends that because the exception created an original obligation for Parkway to the Foundation, Campbell's right to a cause of action was eliminated, and the Foundation was the proper party to pursue the breach of contract, not Campbell. Campbell responds that the law does not support an inference that Idaho Code section 9-506(3) erases Campbell's status as a party to her agreement with Parkway. We agree.
Parkway cites to no authority in support of its position that Campbell's rights to enforce the contract were extinguished once Parkway agreed to pay the loan. Once again, Parkway's argument completely ignores the well-established rule in contract law that even though a third-party beneficiary contract creates a duty to the beneficiary, the promisee still has a right to performance. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 305, 307, cmt. b (1981); see also, Restatement (Second) Contracts § 305, cmt. a ("The promisee of a promise for the benefit of a beneficiary has the same right to performance as any other promisee."). Therefore, Parkway's argument that Campbell's right to enforce the contract was extinguished once Parkway agreed to "take care of" the loan is without merit. Because the agreement between Parkway and Campbell falls under an exception to the statute of frauds, the district court did not err in affirming the magistrate's decision so ruling.
Parkway argues that the district court correctly determined that Campbell was not entitled to monetary damages on the breach of contract claim, but that it erred in reforming the magistrate court's judgment to grant Campbell specific performance.
After the trial, the magistrate court found for Campbell on her breach of contract claim and awarded her damages in the amount of the loan plus interest. Parkway appealed that decision, arguing that Campbell was not entitled to damages because she did not suffer any economic harm. The district court agreed, but remanded the case to the magistrate court to reform the judgment to grant Campbell specific performance.
The parties do not contest that the contract between Parkway and Campbell was a third-party beneficiary contract. Thus, the legal principles governing third-party beneficiary contracts offer guidance here. There is no Idaho case law addressing whether damages are available to a promisee when a promisor breaches a third-party beneficiary contract to pay the promisee's debt to a third party. Parkway cites to two Idaho cases for the proposition that a party must show it suffered economic injury before it can recover damages for a breach of an agreement to pay a debt. See Melaleuca, Inc. v. Foeller, 155 Idaho 920, 924, 318 P.3d 910, 914 (2014); Bergkamp v. Martin, 114 Idaho 650, 653, 759 P.2d 941, 944 (Ct.App.1988). Parkway's reliance on those cases is misplaced. First, neither case involved a breach of an agreement to pay another's debt. Second, Melaleuca cites to Bergkamp for the proposition that a party must show it has been economically injured before it can recover damages for a breach of contract. Melaleuca, 155 Idaho at 924, 318 P.3d at 914. Bergkamp, in turn, cites to 5 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 1003 (1964), for that same proposition. Bergkamp, 114 Idaho at 653, 759 P.2d at 944. However, turning to the relevant section in Corbin, there is nothing that states a party must show an "economic injury" before being able to recover damages. See 11 J. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts § 55.12 (2005) (formerly § 1003). Instead, Corbin states that a party need only show an "injury" to be able to recover damages, and that an injury denotes the fact that the breach of contract has put the complainant in a worse position than he would have been had there been no breach. Id. That section goes on to state that "injury" may consist of "disappointment in not receiving some expected addition to wealth or other benefit not previously existing." Id. (emphasis added). Thus, we want to clarify that, at least for purposes of third-party beneficiary contracts involving a promise to pay another's debt, it is not necessary to show an "economic injury" before a plaintiff can recover damages for a breach. Indeed, the Restatement and ample case law from other jurisdictions support this conclusion and squarely address the issue of whether a promisee is entitled to damages for a breach of a promise to pay a debt. We are persuaded to follow the reasoning from those sources as outlined below.
First, Section 305 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which addresses overlapping duties owed to a promisee and a beneficiary, recognizes that a promise in a third-party beneficiary contract creates a duty in the promisor to the promisee to perform the promise even though he also has a similar duty to the third-party beneficiary. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 305(1) (1981). Thus, even though the contract creates a duty to the beneficiary, the promisee has a right to performance. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 305, 307, cmt. b. The comments to section 305 offer further guidance:
Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 305, cmt. a, b (emphasis added). Furthermore, section 307 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, provides:
Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 307, cmt. b, c (emphasis added). Thus, the Restatement contemplates that in third-party beneficiary contracts involving a promise to pay another's debt, a promisee is entitled to damages in the amount of the debt if the promisor fails to pay that debt.
Some of our sister courts have followed the Restatement approach and have allowed a promisee to recover damages for a breach of an agreement to pay another's debt. For instance, in Mead v. Johnson Group, Inc., 615 S.W.2d 685 (Tex.1981), the parties contracted in association with the sale of a business that Johnson Group would pay certain debts of the business. Id. at 686. When Johnson Group failed to pay the debts, Mead brought suit for a breach of contract and sought damages for the unpaid debts. Id. The trial court awarded Mead damages for the debt that Johnson Group had agreed, but failed, to pay. Id. Johnson Group appealed to the court of civil appeals, which reversed the trial court's award of damages, reasoning that Mead could only recover damages if she first paid the debts to the third parties. Id. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that if Johnson Group were relieved of paying the debt, the result would be inequitable and would unjustly enrich Johnson Group because it received valuable assets from Mead in exchange for its promise to pay Mead's debts. Id. at 689. The Texas Supreme
The holding in Mead is reflected in several cases from other jurisdictions that have addressed the damages available for a party's failure to pay another's debt pursuant to a contract. For instance, in Fairfield v. Day, 71 N.H. 63, 51 A. 263 (1901), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that where a defendant failed to pay plaintiff's outstanding bills as promised, "recovery may be had as soon as there is a breach of the contract, and the measure of the damages is the full amount of the accrued liability." Id. at 263. Similarly, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has held that "a promise to pay a debt due from the promisee, even where it has not been paid by [the promisee], is one upon which an action may be maintained and damages recovered to the amount of such debt." Furnas v. Durgin, 119 Mass. 500, 507 (1876). The Minnesota Supreme Court has also recognized that in a contract to pay and discharge a plaintiff's debt, "authorities are fairly in accord, or at least it is the prevailing doctrine, that one in the position of the plaintiff may recover, and that the amount of the debt is the measure of [the plaintiff's] damages." Heins v. Byers, 174 Minn. 350, 219 N.W. 287, 288 (1928). In an earlier case dealing with the same issue, the Minnesota Supreme Court explained:
Merriam v. Pine City Lumber Co., 23 Minn. 314, 322-23 (1877).
Similarly, the California Supreme Court has held that the measure of a promisee's damages for a promisor's breach of an agreement to pay the promisee's debt is the amount of the debt, regardless of whether the promisee "has already paid the creditors or must yet inevitably pay them." Meyer v. Parsons, 129 Cal. 653, 62 P. 216 (1900). There, the court reasoned that "there is no question but that [the plaintiff] is yet liable to the creditors, and the extent of his right of recovery is not affected by the possibility that the creditors may not exact all that they are entitled to in discharge of their claims... plaintiff can recover the full amount, even though he has not paid it himself." Id. at 217. The cases illustrated above are just a few of the many that have held that a promisee may recover damages for a promisor's breach of an agreement to pay a debt. See also Stout v. Folger, 34 Iowa 71, 74 (1872) ("The authorities agree that upon an undertaking to pay a debt due a third person, the plaintiff may maintain an action without showing that he has paid the debt.") (emphasis in original); Wright v. Chapin, 33 N.Y.S. 1068, 1071 (Gen. Term 1895) (holding that the measure of damages for a breach of a covenant to pay money to a third party, thereby relieving the plaintiff from liability to that third party, is the amount of the liability from the plaintiff to the third party). We agree with the reasoning in the Restatement and in the line of cases discussed above. We therefore hold that a party can recover damages in an action for breach of a third-party contract to pay another's debt.
Parkway argues that the district court erred (1) in affirming the magistrate's award of attorney fees to Campbell; and (2) in awarding attorney fees to Campbell on appeal. The magistrate court awarded Campbell attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(3) and Idaho Code section 12-120(1). The district court affirmed the magistrate's award of attorney fees and also awarded Campbell attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(1).
The trial court has discretion to award attorney fees and costs; that award is subject to review for an abuse of discretion. Magleby v. Garn, 154 Idaho 194, 196, 296 P.3d 400, 402 (2013). When we consider whether a trial court abused its discretion, the standard is whether the court perceived the issue as discretionary, acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Id. at 196-97, 296 P.3d at 402-03.
At the time this action was filed, Idaho Code section 12-120(3) allowed the prevailing party in a commercial transaction to recover attorney fees. Actions brought for breach of an employment contract are considered commercial transactions under Idaho Code section 12-120(3). Willie v. Bd. of Trustees, 138 Idaho 131, 136, 59 P.3d 302, 307 (2002). Because Campbell was the prevailing party in a breach of employment contract action, the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Campbell under Idaho Code section 12-120(3). Consequently, the district court did not err in affirming that award.
Parkway also asserts that the district court erred in awarding attorney fees to Campbell on appeal. The district court awarded attorney fees to Campbell on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(1). When this action was filed, Idaho Code section 12-120(1) provided, in pertinent part:
The district court properly awarded attorney fees to Campbell under Idaho Code section 12-120(1). The record reflects that Campbell presented to Parkway a demand for tuition reimbursement in the amount of $6,800.00, together with attorney fees in the amount of $3,000.00 on June 15, 2005. This was more than ten days before Campbell filed suit against Parkway, which was October 17, 2005. Furthermore, Campbell pleaded less than $25,000.00 in her second amended complaint. Finally, Campbell was the prevailing party at trial. Campbell meets all of Idaho Code section 12-120(1)'s requirements. Thus, the district court did not err when it awarded attorney fees to Campbell on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(1).
Both parties request attorney fees on appeal. Parkway requests attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3) and Idaho Appellate Rule 41. Campbell requests attorney
As discussed above, Idaho Code section 12-120(3) allows the prevailing party in a commercial transaction to recover attorney fees, and actions brought for a breach of an employment contract are considered commercial transactions. This case involved a breach of an employment contract, and Campbell is the prevailing party on appeal. Therefore, Campbell is entitled to attorney fees.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's decision in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs and attorney fees to Campbell.
Justices W. JONES and HORTON concur.
EISMANN, Justice, specially concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion, but simply write to illustrate the absurdity of Parkway's intransigence. Because it stubbornly refused to pay its $6,800 debt to Campbell, she was awarded $48,989.62 in attorney fees and court costs in the magistrate court and $18,429.23 in attorney fees and costs in the district court. Thus, Parkway will have to pay an additional sum of $67,418.85, plus interest, to Campbell in its frivolous attempt to avoid a $6,800 debt. In addition, it has undoubtedly paid its own counsel, and this Court will award Campbell additional attorney fees and costs on this appeal.
J. JONES, Justice, specially concurring.
I fully concur in the Court's opinion, but feel it appropriate to mention the counter-productive results of Parkway's deplorable conduct in this case. Throughout the proceedings, Parkway has professed not to understand what "take care of" means. I would expect that when several people are eating at the same table at a restaurant in Blackfoot and one says he will "take care of" the bill, everyone at the table understands what he means. It means that he will pay the bill, rather than sitting around for years hoping that the waitperson will never bring it. When sued by Campbell, Parkway filed a cross-claim against Arthur McCracken, who had been authorized by the Board of Directors to make the deal with Campbell, claiming that he was unauthorized to make the deal and should have to bear the consequences of any judgment in favor of Campbell. The magistrate judge saw through this tawdry business, granting judgment against Parkway on the cross-claim at the same time he granted judgment in favor of Campbell on her complaint.
The magistrate awarded Campbell attorney fees in the amount of $48,551.73 and awarded McCracken fees in the amount of $9,855. Parkway filed a frivolous appeal of Campbell's judgment, which the district court rebuffed, awarding Campbell $18,429.23 in attorney fees. This Court will also award attorney fees to Campbell for Parkway's meritless appeal. While I.R.C.P. 54(e)(3) does not specifically factor in deplorable conduct as an additional matter to consideration in a fee award, in addition to time and labor, it is likely that such a factor could be considered under factor (L) of the rule.
Thus, Parkway incurred monetary indebtedness in the sum of $76,835.96, plus (1) interest, (2) costs of suit, (3) fees awarded by this Court, and (4) the fees of its own attorneys, in its quest to beat a $6,800 contractual obligation. In addition to tying up court time that could have been devoted to meritorious matters, Parkway's conduct has undoubtedly taken a toll on Campbell, who only wanted Parkway to honor its contractual obligation. It is unfortunate that she had to put up with this course of misconduct. The fee awards may help to relieve the burden and, hopefully, will cause Parkway to conform to more acceptable behavioral norms in the future.
Bergkamp, 114 Idaho at 653, 759 P.2d at 944.
Wing, 107 Idaho at 272, 688 P.2d at 1177.
