With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Bader breached the FOA is directly contrary to the court’s original implicit finding that Bader did not breach the FOA. Only a timely rule 179(b) motion following the original ruling would have authorized such a contrary finding. Vicorp filed no such timely motion. For that reason, the district court was without authority on the limited remand to find that Bader breached the FOA. We therefore conclude Bader was a prevailing party not only on the counterclaim but also on his defense against Vieorp’s claim. The district court erred in concluding otherwise. C. Appellate attorney fees. Bader thinks he is also entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal. We agree. There is nothing in the FOA that prohibits such fees. See Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Woods, 480 N.W.2d 61, 69 (Iowa 1992) (<HOLDING>). V. Disposition. In sum, we conclude the

A: holding that bank was entitled to attorney fees on appeal when agreement did not prohibit such fees
B: holding attorney lacked standing to challenge amount of attorney fees awarded plaintiffs not parties to the appeal
C: recognizing that an appeal filed within 30 days of the entry of an order awarding attorney fees was timely filed as to the issue of attorney fees
D: holding that chanenge to the amount of attorney fees was not preserved for appeal where appellants objection challenged only the entitlement to fees
A.