Neal v. State3/25/2003
Submitted on Briefs: January 31, 2002
Appellant Kent D. Neal (Neal) appeals from the order of the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders County, in favor of Respondent State of Montana, denying Neal an award of costs following his successful challenge to the suspension of his driver's license. We reverse and remand.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it denied Neal's request for costs.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 18, 2001, after being arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI), Neal's driver's license was suspended for refusing to take a breath test. On February 2, 2001, Neal filed a petition for reinstatement of his driver's license, challenging the suspension of his license under §§ 61-8-402, MCA, by claiming he did not refuse to take a breath test. After a hearing on March 27, 2001, the District Court ordered that Neal's license be reinstated, finding he did not refuse to take the breath test. On April 2, 2001, the District Court signed the Order reinstating Neal's license, which included a provision granting Neal his costs, even though costs were not discussed during the hearing. The State objected to the award of costs, and on May 9, 2001, the District Court issued an Order amending its original Order and denying costs. Neal now appeals the District Court's denial of costs.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews issues of law to determine whether the district court's application or interpretation of the law is correct. MacPheat v. Schauf, 2002 MT 23, 7, 308 Mont. 215, 7, 41 P.3d 895, 7.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court err when it denied Neal's request for costs following his successful challenge to the suspension of his driver's license?
Neal argues that as the prevailing plaintiff in a lawsuit, he is entitled to costs under §§ 25-10-101, MCA. Section 25-10-101, MCA, reads as follows:
When costs allowed, of course, to plaintiff. Costs are allowed, of course, to the plaintiff upon a judgment in his favor in the following cases:
(1) in an action for the recovery of real property or damages thereto;
(2) in an action to recover the possession of personal property where the value of the property exceeds $50; such value shall be determined by the jury, court, or referee by whom the action is tried;
(3) in an action for the recovery of money or damages, exclusive of interest, when plaintiff recovers over $50;
(4) in a special proceeding;
(5) in an action which involves the title or possession or right of possession of real estate; or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll, or municipal fine; or quo warrantor proceedings;
(6) in an action to foreclose a lien or pledge, to prevent or abate a nuisance, or for an injunction; or
(7) in an action for property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle if he is entitled to attorney's fees under 25-10-303.
Section 25-10-101, MCA, allows the award of costs as a matter "of course" to a plaintiff who prevails in one of the seven enumerated causes. Neal argues that a driver's license is personal property with a value exceeding $50, which would allow recovery of his costs under §§ 25-10-101(2), MCA, or, alternatively, that a petition to reinstate a driver's license is a "special proceeding," which would allow recovery of his costs under §§ 25-10-101(4), MCA.
The State argues that this Court has previously held that a prevailing party is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs against t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|