No. 31-297
IN THE SUP2PIME COTURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA
i991
BPACLEY M . MUWSTRONG,
Petitioner and Appellant,
-71s-
STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL PROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and for the County of Flathead,
The Honorable Michael H. Keedy, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Erik Rocksund, Columbia Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Marc Racicot, Attorney General; Peter Funk,
Assistant, Helena, Montana
Ted 0, Lympus, County Attorney; Thomas J. Esch,
Deputy, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on ~riefs: October 10, 1991
Decided: November 14, 1991
Filed:
J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
Bradley H. Armstrong a p p e a l s from an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court
o f t n e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t f o r Flathead County, Montana, denying
h i m a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s . W e affirm.
The i s s u e b e f o r e t h e Court is whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d
i n r e f u s i n g t o award a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s and c o s t s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t .
A b r i e f r e c i t a t i o n o f t h e f a c t s o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g c a s e fromwhich
t h i s a p p e a l o r i g i n a l l y stems i s n e c e s s a r y . I n Armstrong v. S t a t e
( 1 9 9 0 ) , 245 Mont. 4 2 0 , 800 P.2d 1 7 2 , ( h e r e i n a f t e r Armstrons I ) , a
Columbia F a l l s P o l i c e o f f i c e r observed t h e a p p e l l a n t d r i v i n g down
a n a l l e y a t approximately 2:00 a.m. The o f f i c e r s t o p p e d t h e a p p e l l a n t
and a r r e s t e d h i m f o r drivingwhileundertheinfluence. The a p p e l l a n t
r e f u s e d t o t a k e a b r e a t h a l y z e r t e s t and s u b s e q u e n t l y had h i s l i c e n s e
t a k e n away. L a t e r , t h e D U I c h a r g e s were dropped and t h e a p p e l l a n t
p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r r e i n s t a t e m e n t of h i s l i c e n s e . At
a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e i n s t a t e m e n t i s s u e , t h e S t a t e conceded
t h a t t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r l a c k e d p r o b a b l e cause t o s t o p t h e a p p e l l a n t ,
b u t m a i n t a i n e d t h e s t o p was l a w f u l due t o t h e o f f i c e r ' s p a r t i c u l a r
suspicion. The D i s t r i c t Court d e n i e d t h e r e q u e s t and on a p p e a l , t h i s
Court r e v e r s e d and r e i n s t a t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s l i c e n s e . Armstronq
L, 245 Mont. a t 423, 800 P.2d a t 1 7 4 .
One day p r i o r t o o u r i s s u a n c e of R e m i t t i t u r i n Armstronu I t h e
a p p e l i a n t p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o r e c o v e r t h e a t t o r n e y ' s
f e e s and c o s t s he i n c u r r e d . The D i s t r i c t Court d e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o n
and this appeal results
An award of attorney's fees and costs is within the discretion
of the trial court. State Dept. of Revenue v, Frank :1987) , 226 Mont,
283, 293, 735 P.2d 290, 297; citing Joseph Russell Realty Co. v.
Kenneally (19801, 185 Hont. 496, 605 P.2d 1107. Such an award is
also governed by § 25-10-711, MCA, which states:
(1) In any civil action brought by or against the state
. . . the opposing party, whether plaintiff or defendant,
is entitied to the costs enumerated in 25-10-201 and
reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court if:
(a) he prevails against the state ... and;
(b) the court finds that the claim or defense of the state
. . . that brought or defended the action was frivolous
or pursued in bad faith.
By prevailing in Armstronu I, the appellant satisfies the first
requirement of the statute, but there must also be a showing of bad
faith or frivolousness. A claim pursued frivolously or in bad faith
is outside "the bounds of legitimate argument on a substantial issue
on which there is a bona fide difference of opinion. " Dept. of Revenue
v. New Life Fellowship (1Y85), 217 Mont. 192, 195, 703 P.2d 860, 862:
citing Albertsonls Inc. v. Dept. of Business Regulation (1979), 184
Mont. 12, 18, 601 P.2d 43, 46.
The record discloses that the District Court did not find that
the defense of the State was frivolous or pursued in bad faith.
Section 25-10-711(b), MCA, requires such finding before an award of
attorney's fees can be made.
The record supports the District Court not making a finding that
the State's defense of the action was frivolous or pursued in bad
faith. We hold that the denial of attorney's fees and costs was proper
and we will not disturb the District Court's order to that effect.
Af finned.