concurring in the result.
Although I would reach the same result as the Court does in its opinion, I would do so by means of different rationales.
Concerning the summary judgment, in my view the doctrine of Riverside v. Ritchie, 103 Idaho 515, 650 P.2d 657 (1982) is not applicable in this case. Although both parties requested summary judgment and boundary by agreement was the primary issue they ad*903dressed, they did not do so without some disagreement on the facts. Specifically, by the affidavit of their daughter, Janet Gough, the Camerons presented evidence that the fence was used as a barrier, not as a boundary. In this affidavit Janet Gough stated: “The fence in question as far as I know is used as a barrier.” The Neals did not challenge the admissibility of this asserted fact. Our decisions dictate that the Camerons are entitled to every reasonable inference from this asserted fact. Kessler v. Barowsky, 129 Idaho 647, 654, 931 P.2d 641, 648 (1997). I conclude, nevertheless, that it is not a reasonable inference from the statement in this affidavit that those who owned the properties intended it as a barrier instead of a boundary.
Concerning the trial court’s award of attorney fees, while I concur that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, I would not engage in reviewing the merits of the award as it appears the Court’s opinion does. Instead, I would uphold the trial court’s award on the basis of the three-step analysis we apply to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion. See Savage Lateral Ditch Water Users v. Pulley, 125 Idaho 237, 250, 869 P.2d 554, 567 (1993). I conclude that the trial court perceived it had discretion to award attorney fees, acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistent with the applicable legal standards, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason.