Lexplug logoLexplug

Griff, Inc. v. Curry Bean Co., Inc.

Idaho Supreme Court
unknown (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Idaho Code § 12-120(5), attorney's fees incurred while pursuing a claim through a separate, independent administrative remedy, such as the Commodity Indemnity Account Program (CIAP), are not considered fees "incurred in attempting to collect on the judgment" and are therefore not recoverable from the judgment debtor.


Facts:

  • Griff, Inc. (Griff), a bean grower, had an ongoing business arrangement to deposit its beans with Curry Bean Company, Inc. (Curry), a bonded agricultural warehouse.
  • The agreement stipulated that Curry would mill and market the beans, paying Griff the price received from third-party sales, minus a service charge.
  • In 1996, Griff delivered 39,271.09 cwt. of beans to Curry.
  • A dispute arose over whether the beans were sold in 1996, when prices were high, or in 1997, when prices were significantly lower.
  • Griff contended that Curry purchased the beans for itself in 1996 to cover a 'short position,' thereby setting the price in 1996.
  • Curry argued it sold the beans to third parties in 1997 according to their usual course of business.
  • Evidence presented at trial indicated that a Curry employee, Greg Hull, instructed a bookkeeper to alter business records in 1998 to reflect a 1997 sale date, when market prices were lower.

Procedural Posture:

  • Griff, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Curry Bean Company, Inc. in an Idaho district court, alleging breach of contract.
  • The district court granted Griff's motion to amend its complaint to include a prayer for punitive damages.
  • Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Griff, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages.
  • The district court entered judgment on the verdict.
  • Curry filed motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, both of which the district court denied.
  • Griff filed a post-judgment motion seeking to recover attorney's fees it incurred while pursuing a claim with the state's Commodity Indemnity Account Program (CIAP).
  • The district court granted Griff's motion and awarded it $14,047.00 for the post-judgment attorney's fees.
  • Curry, as appellant, appealed the final judgment, the denial of its post-trial motions, and the award of post-judgment attorney's fees to the Supreme Court of Idaho.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a party's pursuit of a claim through the Idaho Commodity Indemnity Account Program (CIAP) constitute 'attempting to collect on the judgment' for the purposes of recovering post-judgment attorney's fees under Idaho Code § 12-120(5)?


Opinions:

Majority - Kidwell, Justice.

No, a party's pursuit of a claim through the Idaho Commodity Indemnity Account Program (CIAP) does not constitute 'attempting to collect on the judgment.' The court reasoned that the CIAP is an independent, administrative remedy for producers to recover losses from failed bonded warehouses, which operates separately from the judicial process. Recovery through the CIAP does not require a prior court judgment, and the program has its own procedures for determining the validity and value of claims, which could differ from a jury's verdict. Because the CIAP action is an independent proceeding rather than a derivative action to enforce the court's judgment, the attorney's fees incurred are not recoverable under I.C. § 12-120(5).



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the narrow scope of Idaho's statute allowing for the recovery of post-judgment attorney's fees. It establishes a clear distinction between direct efforts to collect on a specific court judgment (e.g., writs of execution, garnishment) and pursuing parallel or alternative remedies, even if they address the same underlying financial loss. The ruling prevents a prevailing party from shifting the costs of pursuing separate administrative or statutory remedies onto the judgment debtor. This precedent requires future litigants to segregate legal fees and understand that only those directly tied to enforcing the court's specific order are potentially recoverable.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Griff, Inc. v. Curry Bean Co., Inc. (2003) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Griff, Inc. v. Curry Bean Co., Inc.