Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Two siblings, Ryan and Nancy, disputed the administration of their father Hal’s estate and the status of his ownership interest in Tautphaus Park Storage, LLC (TPS), an Idaho storage facility business. Hal, who suffered from progressive dementia before his death, was TPS’s sole voting member and manager, with Nancy assisting in legal and management matters. Several amendments to TPS’s operating agreement changed ownership and management, culminating—after Hal’s death—in Nancy executing further amendments that retroactively transferred Hal’s economic interest to herself and changed accounting records. Nancy, an attorney, served as both Hal’s lawyer and later as personal representative of his estate. Ryan questioned whether Hal’s interest in TPS remained an estate asset and sought access to business records, which Nancy resisted.The siblings litigated issues in two related cases in Bonneville County: a probate case in the Magistrate Court regarding Hal’s estate, and a separate TEDRA (Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act) civil action in District Court initiated by Ryan. Both courts and parties at times treated the cases as consolidated. Ryan’s TEDRA complaint sought judicial determination of estate assets, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and appointment of a receiver, naming Nancy in both her individual and representative capacities and TPS as defendants. The magistrate court dismissed Ryan’s claims and removed Nancy and TPS as parties, finding that estate matters should be decided exclusively in probate. The district court affirmed, denying Ryan’s motions and dismissing his amended complaint, reasoning that Ryan’s claims were matters for probate only.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho vacated both lower courts’ judgments. It held that Ryan’s claims for judicial determination of estate assets and breach of fiduciary duty fall within TEDRA’s definition of “matters” and may be raised in a separate civil action, not only in probate. The Court reversed the orders dismissing claims and parties, remanded the case for further proceedings, and awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees to Ryan against Nancy personally. View "Monson v. Monson" on Justia Law

Two couples entered into a written agreement for the sale and purchase of a condominium in Idaho, using a standard real estate contract form. The property was identified by its street address, unit number, and condominium name. After agreeing to terms and signing the contract, the sellers informed the buyers that they no longer wished to sell. The buyers, who had already paid earnest money, secured financing, and prepared for closing, sought to enforce the agreement. The sellers refused to proceed, claiming the contract was unenforceable due to an inadequate property description under the statute of frauds and asserting the parties had mutually rescinded the agreement.The case was first heard in the District Court of the First Judicial District, Bonner County. The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the statute of frauds and specific performance, finding factual disputes. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that the property description in the contract was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. At a subsequent jury trial, the jury found that the contract was valid, had not been rescinded or abandoned, and that the sellers breached it, awarding the buyers damages. The district court, however, granted the sellers’ motion for partial summary judgment, finding the remedy of specific performance unavailable because the buyers had not tendered the full purchase price at closing.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed that the contract’s property description satisfied statutory requirements and thus dismissed the sellers’ statute of frauds defense. The court held that the district court erred in denying specific performance solely for failure to tender the full purchase price, especially since the sellers’ conduct prevented completion. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the denial of specific performance and remanded for the district court to consider equitable factors. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees to the buyers and awarded them costs and fees on appeal. View "McLaughlin v. Moore" on Justia Law

The case involves Todd Marshall Frandsen, who was charged with three counts of lewd conduct with minors under sixteen, based on allegations from his three sons. The boys reported that Frandsen engaged in lewd and abusive conduct, including fondling and other forms of mistreatment, over many years. Each son described similar patterns of abuse, which included threats and psychological intimidation. Frandsen was tried before a jury in Bannock County, Idaho, in March 2023.After a four-day trial, the jury convicted Frandsen of two counts related to the older boys and acquitted him of the charge involving the youngest. Frandsen was sentenced to two concurrent life sentences with 25-year fixed terms, later reduced to 20 years fixed upon his motion for reconsideration. He filed timely appeals, arguing that the district court erred by not removing a juror who recalled knowing one of the victims, admitting certain text messages between a victim and their mother, permitting a forensic interviewer to offer expert-like testimony without proper disclosure, and imposing an excessive sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining the juror, as she provided unequivocal assurances of impartiality and her past acquaintance with a victim did not establish actual or implied bias. The Court found the text messages were relevant and non-hearsay, though it did identify harmless error in admitting references to uncharged physical abuse without required Rule 404(b) notice. Similarly, it determined that the forensic interviewer’s limited expert testimony, though improper due to non-disclosure, was harmless given the acquittal on the related charge. The Court also found that the sentence imposed was not excessive. Accordingly, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "State v. Frandsen" on Justia Law

The case arises from a procurement process initiated by Idaho’s Division of Purchasing to select a contractor to provide behavioral health and substance abuse services for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Carelon Behavioral Health, Inc. was initially selected as the winning bidder. However, the other two bidders, Magellan Healthcare and United Behavioral Health (Optum), challenged Carelon’s eligibility, arguing that Carelon had previously been paid by the State for services used to prepare the specifications of the contract, which would bar it from bidding under Idaho Code section 67-9230(8). A determinations officer reviewed the matter and found that Carelon's prior work did influence the contract specifications, rendering it ineligible. The Director of Administration adopted this recommendation, rescinded the intent to award the contract to Carelon, and ultimately awarded it to Magellan.Following this, Carelon filed a complaint in the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District seeking declaratory relief and a writ of mandate to overturn the Director’s decision and reinstate its bid. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning that Carelon’s claims were, in substance, a request for judicial review of the Director’s procurement decision, which is expressly precluded by the State Procurement Act unless the case arises from a contested case hearing. The court also rejected Carelon’s claims for a writ of mandate and its constitutional challenges to the statute.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Court held that the State Procurement Act prohibits judicial review of procurement decisions made outside of contested case hearings and that Carelon’s claims could not be recast as an original declaratory judgment action to circumvent this limitation. The Court also found that the statutory bar on judicial review does not violate the separation of powers under the Idaho Constitution and that section 67-9230(8) is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Carelon. View "Carelon Behavioral Health, Inc. v. State" on Justia Law

A woman was convicted of possessing methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia after police discovered these items during a search of a residence she shared with another individual who was on probation. The search was initiated when a probation officer visited to verify the housemate's residence. The woman answered the door, attempted to refuse entry by shutting the door, but the officer entered regardless and proceeded to search the shared bedroom after both occupants indicated there might be contraband present. The officer found drugs and paraphernalia in the room, and both individuals were charged.Previously, the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, denied the woman's motion to suppress the evidence, rejecting her argument that the search was unlawful under Georgia v. Randolph because she had expressly objected to the entry. The district court also admitted a police body camera video at trial, which included statements from her housemate that allegedly violated her Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Bruton v. United States. The case proceeded to a joint jury trial, resulting in guilty verdicts for both defendants.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case. It held that the search was lawful because the probationer's waiver of Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of probation allowed officers to enter and search shared areas, even over the objection of a co-occupant. The Court declined to extend the Randolph rule to probation searches, reasoning that co-tenants of probationers have a reduced expectation of privacy. Regarding the confrontation issue, the Court found that admitting the body camera footage was error under Bruton, but determined the error was harmless due to overwhelming independent evidence of guilt. The Court affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction. View "State v. Horn" on Justia Law

Police responded to a report of a disturbance at a man’s home, where they learned from his girlfriend that he was a convicted felon in possession of firearms. The man admitted that he knew about the firearms and had purchased two for his children. He led officers through his home, where they recovered three firearms and ammunition. The State charged him with three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.The case progressed through the Idaho courts, beginning with the magistrate court, where the man repeatedly stated he could not afford an attorney and wanted “effective assistance of counsel,” rather than representation. The magistrate court suggested he did not qualify for a public defender due to his employment, and the preliminary hearing proceeded with the defendant unrepresented, after which he was bound over to the district court. Throughout proceedings before the district court, the man continued to appear without counsel, filing many pro se motions. Eventually, after much confusion about his wishes, the district court appointed “shadow counsel” to assist him at trial, but continued to treat him as self-represented. The jury convicted him on all counts, and the district court denied his post-trial motions.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case after the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of “shadow counsel” did not satisfy the Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the defendant, not an attorney, controlled and managed his defense. The Court further held that the record did not show the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, as required by law. As a result, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Knight" on Justia Law

Sheryl Robertson was arrested in Custer County, Idaho, for felony possession of methamphetamine and ultimately pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court sentenced her to a ten-year term, retained jurisdiction for one year, and later placed her on probation with additional requirements after she admitted to multiple probation violations. These requirements included completing 100 hours of community service and successfully participating in a treatment court program. Robertson entered the Bonneville County Wood Court but encountered issues with the program and requested transfer to a different treatment court. The State subsequently moved to terminate her participation in Wood Court and revoke her probation, alleging further rule violations.Robertson waived her right to a termination hearing in Wood Court using forms that referenced only the treatment court termination, not probation revocation. The district court proceeded directly to disposition on the alleged probation violation, reasoning that Robertson’s waiver in Wood Court extended to her right to a probation-revocation hearing. Robertson was sentenced to a modified term of incarceration, and she appealed. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, finding that the procedures under the Idaho Rules for Treatment Courts (I.R.T.C.) were followed and provided the required due process, but declined to address whether Robertson had received the process required by the Fourteenth Amendment as articulated in Morrissey v. Brewer.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and held that Robertson’s waiver of her right to a probation-revocation hearing was not knowing and intelligent, as required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The forms she signed did not clearly communicate that waiving the Wood Court termination hearing also constituted a waiver of the right to a probation-revocation hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order revoking probation and imposing a modified sentence, and remanded the case for a probation-revocation hearing. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

A police officer employed by a city suffered injuries during a traffic stop in May 2019. The city, acting as a self-insured employer through a third-party administrator, initially accepted liability for a right hip injury, providing compensation and full salary. Subsequently, the officer developed left hip symptoms, and medical opinions varied on whether these were related to the workplace accident. The employer questioned the connection, declined to authorize further treatment for the left hip, and requested access to medical records and an independent medical examination (IME). After the officer did not cooperate with these requests, the employer sent a letter stating that compensation benefits would be suspended, although the Idaho Industrial Commission later found that no actual suspension occurred.The officer later filed a petition with the Idaho Industrial Commission seeking a declaratory ruling on whether a recent Idaho Supreme Court decision (Arreola v. Scentsy, Inc.) applied retroactively to her situation, which would have affected the employer’s ability to suspend benefits unilaterally. While this petition was pending, the employer filed a complaint with the Commission to resolve disputes about the officer’s entitlement to benefits and failure to attend IMEs. The officer responded with a second petition, challenging the employer’s ability to file such a complaint. The Commission declined to address the first petition on procedural grounds and denied the second on the merits, concluding that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate an employer’s complaint.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the Commission’s denial of the first petition, finding the issue moot because the officer’s benefits had not been suspended and thus there was no live controversy. However, the Court set aside the denial of the second petition, holding that under Idaho’s worker’s compensation law, only employees—not employers—may file a complaint (application for hearing) with the Commission to adjudicate claims regarding unpaid or discontinued compensation or income benefits. View "Coronado v. City of Boise" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance and two related misdemeanors. He and the prosecution entered into a plea agreement under which he would plead guilty to the felony, the misdemeanors would be dismissed, and he would receive a suspended sentence with probation, provided he complied with certain conditions. The agreement included a clause stating it would be “null and void” if the defendant failed to appear for his presentence appointment or sentencing without good cause. After entering his guilty plea, the defendant failed to appear for both the presentence appointment and sentencing, leading to his arrest on a bench warrant.Following these events, the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Nez Perce County, determined that the “null and void” clause released the State and the court from their obligations under the plea agreement, but held that the defendant remained bound by his guilty plea. The court imposed a sentence inconsistent with the plea agreement and did not allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment.On review, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the “null and void” clause. The Supreme Court concluded that, under general contract principles, the clause rendered the entire plea agreement unenforceable by either party upon breach, not just by the State. The court further held that, under Idaho Criminal Rule 11(f)(4), once the plea agreement was rendered unenforceable and the court declined to be bound by its terms, the defendant was entitled to an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. Because the district court failed to provide this opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. McGarvey" on Justia Law

After a 22-year-old man was killed in a car accident caused by a drunk driver, his parents, who were no longer together, each filed separate wrongful death lawsuits. The mother and father’s cases were consolidated and settled before trial, but they could not agree on how to divide the settlement proceeds. The law firm holding the funds initiated an interpleader action to have the court determine the appropriate division. The parents had a complicated history, including periods of estrangement, custody disputes, and issues related to drug use and financial support.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, held an evidentiary hearing and ultimately awarded 75% of the net settlement proceeds to the mother and 25% to the father. The court based its decision on findings that the father had failed to fulfill his parental and legal obligations, including not paying child support, misusing disability payments intended for the child, and engaging in illegal drug use with his son. The court found that the mother had provided more consistent emotional and financial support. The father appealed, arguing that he was entitled to half of the proceeds and that the court erred by considering his past conduct rather than the proper legal standard for wrongful death damages.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the district court erred by not applying the correct legal standard. The Supreme Court clarified that wrongful death damages are forward-looking and intended to compensate for the loss of future support, companionship, and other benefits the decedent would have provided. The court found that the district court improperly based its apportionment on the parents’ past conduct rather than their respective losses. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Rossman Law Group, PLLC v. Holcomb and Carraway" on Justia Law