Charney v. Charney

• Decision Date: 23 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 42165–2014.,42165–2014.
• Citation: 356 P.3d 355,159 Idaho 62
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: Judy L. CHARNEY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Dennis M. CHARNEY, Defendant–Appellant.

159 Idaho 62

356 P.3d 355

Judy L. CHARNEY, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Dennis M. CHARNEY, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 42165–2014.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2015 Term.

June 23, 2015.

Tricia K. Soper, Mark D. Perison P.A., Boise, argued for appellant.

James A. Bevis, Bevis, Thiry & Schindele P.A., Boise, argued for respondent.

EISMANN, Justice.

This is an appeal out of Ada County from the award of attorney fees in a contempt proceeding which was dismissed without prejudice at the request of the party who initiated the proceeding. We affirm the award of attorney fees and award attorney fees on appeal.

I.Factual Background.

On March 21, 2012, Judy L. Charney (Judy) and Dennis M. Charney (Dennis) were divorced. On May 11, 2012, Dennis commenced contempt proceedings against Judy alleging four counts of contempt for allegedly violating provisions of the property settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the judgment. On June 8, 2012, Dennis filed an amended motion to add a fifth count for contempt. Judy denied the allegations of contempt, and the matter was set for an evidentiary hearing to commence on April 11, 2013.

On March 28, 2013, Dennis filed a motion to dismiss the contempt proceedings, which was heard on April 9, 2013. The magistrate court asked Judy's attorney whether there was any objection to the motion, and he stated that there was not, but it should be dismissed with prejudice. The court stated that the dismissal would be without prejudice unless the parties agreed that it was with prejudice. Dennis's attorney stated that he did not anticipate the contempt proceedings being refiled, but did not have the authority to agree to a dismissal with prejudice. The court then stated that the dismissal would be without prejudice. The court entered an order dismissing the contempt proceedings the following day.

On April 17, 2013, Judy filed a motion seeking an award of attorney fees and costs. She sought an award of attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code sections 7–610, 12–121, and 12–123. Dennis timely objected, and the matter was argued on July 16, 2013. The following day, the magistrate court entered a judgment finding that Judy was the prevailing party in the contempt proceedings and awarding her attorney fees in the sum of $8,867.50 pursuant to Idaho Code sections 7–610 and 12–123 and court costs in the sum of $108.60, for a total of $8,976.10.

Dennis appealed to the district court, challenging the award of attorney fees. After briefing and argument, the district court on April 14, 2014, entered a decision on appeal affirming the magistrate court's award of attorney fees. On May 27, 2014, Dennis appealed that affirmance to this Court.

While still before the district court Judy had requested an award of attorney fees on appeal, to which Dennis objected. After argument, the district court entered an order awarding Judy attorney fees on appeal in the sum of $9,297.50.

On June 25, 2014, Dennis filed a motion for reconsideration. That motion was heard on September 3, 2014, by the Hon. Gerald F. Schroeder, Senior District Judge. On September 4, 2014, the district court entered an order denying the motion for reconsideration.

II.

Did the District Court Err in Affirming the Magistrate Court's Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to Idaho Code section 7–610 ?

The magistrate court awarded Judy attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 7–610, which provides that in a contempt proceeding, "the court in its discretion, may award attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party." Rule 822 of the Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure provides, "Actions for contempt shall be governed by Rule 75, Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure." Rule 75(m) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure states:

In any contempt proceeding, the court may award the prevailing party costs and reasonable attorney fees under Idaho Code § 7–610, regardless of whether the court imposes a civil sanction, a criminal sanction, or no sanction. The procedure for awarding such costs and fees shall be as provided in Rule 54(e) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, except that the determination of the prevailing party shall be based upon who prevailed in the contempt proceeding rather than in the civil action as a whole.

Rule 54(e)(1) states that the court "may award reasonable attorney fees, which at the discretion of the court may include paralegal fees, to the prevailing party or parties as defined in Rule 54(d)(1)(B)." That rule provides that "in determining which party is the prevailing party, the trial court shall in its sound discretion consider the final judgment or result of the action in relation to the relief sought by the respective parties." I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B). The trial court may also decide, in its sound discretion, that a party only prevailed in part and apportion the costs between or among the parties.

In making a determination of whether a trial court abused its discretion, this Court considers: (1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the boundaries of this discretion and consistent 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. Rockefeller v. Grabow, 139 Idaho 538, 545, 82 P.3d 450, 457 (2003). Dennis argues that the district court erred in holding that the magistrate court did not abuse its discretion in making an award of attorney fees for several reasons.

First, Dennis argues that the magistrate court did not act consistent with the applicable legal standards because, as a matter of law, Judy cannot be the prevailing party where the contempt proceedings were dismissed without prejudice. This Court has not directly addressed whether a defendant can be a prevailing party in an action dismissed without prejudice, but that was certainly the basis of this Court's decision in Parkside Schools, Inc. v. Bronco Elite Arts & Athletics, LLC, 145 Idaho 176, 177 P.3d 390 (2008). Parkside Schools was leasing two building spaces from Bronco Elite under separate leases. Id. at 177, 177 P.3d at 391. Parkside Schools had an option to extend the term for one of the leases, but failed to timely exercise that option. Id. In February 2005, Bronco Elite gave notice that both leases would expire on July 1, 2005, and it leased the spaces to another tenant beginning on that date. Id. at 178, 177 P.3d at 392.

Parkside Schools filed a lawsuit and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to retain possession of the leased space. Id. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the requested relief because Parkside Schools had no basis for injunctive relief. Id.

Parkside Schools asked Bronco Elite to stipulate to a dismissal of the action with each party to bear its own court costs and attorney fees, but Bronco Elite refused, stating that it was considering seeking an award of attorney fees. Id. Six days later, Parkside Schools filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice and requested that each party bear its own court costs and attorney fees. Id. The motion did not include a request for oral argument, nor was it accompanied by a brief. Three days later, the district court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. Id. The dismissal order stated that each party would bear its own court costs and attorney fees. Id. Bronco Elite then appealed. Id.

This Court vacated the order of dismissal and remanded the case. Id. at 179, 177 P.3d at 393. This Court did not hold that the district court erred in dismissing the case without prejudice. Rather, we found that it erred in doing so without giving Bronco Elite an opportunity to request an award of attorney fees. We stated: "It is clear that Parkside failed to comply with applicable provisions of I.R.C.P. 7(b)(3) and the district court ignored those provisions, thereby abusing its discretion. As a result, Bronco Elite's interests, particularly its right to an opportunity to be heard on the question of attorney fees, were disregarded." Id. at 178, 177 P.3d at 392 (emphasis added). If, as a matter of law, attorney fees could not be awarded to a defendant when an action is dismissed without prejudice, there would have been no reason for this Court to set aside the district court's order and remand the case.

A trial court has discretion to determine whether there is a prevailing party. Bream v. Benscoter, 139 Idaho 364, 368, 79 P.3d 723, 727 (2003). A court can determine that a party is a prevailing party even when the proceedings against the party are dismissed without prejudice. That dismissal terminates the proceedings against that party.

Second, Dennis contends that the magistrate court had misperceived the law when it stated, "Mr. Charney could not bring these motions again because all of them involve allegations of criminal contempt that took place more than a year ago. So, the statute of limitation [sic] would prevent him from refiling them, if nothing else." Dennis argues that the contempt proceedings were seeking civil contempt sanctions and there is no statute of limitations for civil contempt, citing State v. Schorzman, 129 Idaho 313, 924 P.2d 214 (1996).

The allegations of contempt were based upon alleged violations of the parties' property settlement agreement, which was merged into the divorce decree. For simplicity, we will refer to the allegations as being violations of the property settlement agreement.

Count One of the motion for contempt alleged that Judy had violated the property settlement agreement by failing to pay a landscaping debt that was her obligation. According to Dennis, the property settlement agreement required Judy "to pay all bills in her name." This specific debt was apparently not explicitly listed as one she was obligated to pay. The creditor's invoice dated November 25, 2011, had Judy's name on it, and the amount of the debt was $1,472. Dennis stated that both parties were aware...