Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue presented for the Supreme Court's review stems from a quiet title action filed by Appellants Andrew and Kimberly Kirk against Ann Wescott. The Kirks bought a plot of land in Blaine County, referred to as Lot 7 of Block 1 of the Glassford Heights Subdivision (“Lot 7”). After purchasing Lot 7, the Kirks found out that Lot 8 of the subdivision had been granted an easement of access across the southeast corner of Lot 7. Wescott owned Lot 8. In 2012, the Kirks brought this action to quiet title, asking the court to terminate the easement encumbering their property. Both parties moved for summary judgment, asking the court to interpret the deed granting the easement. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Wescott, concluding that the easement was created and none of the events that would trigger its termination had occurred. The Kirks then filed two motions to amend the complaint, both of which the district court denied. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed the Kirks’ action for quiet title. Wescott sought an award of attorney fees, which the district court also denied. On appeal, the Kirks challenged the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Wescott and the court’s denial of their motions to amend the complaint. Wescott cross-appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of her motion for attorney fees. Wescott also sought an award of attorney fees on appeal. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in its interpretation of the easement on summary judgment. The district court judgment in favor of Wescott was reversed and the case remanded to the district court to enter judgment in favor of the Kirks. Costs were awarded to the Kirks on appeal. View "Kirk v. Wescott" on Justia Law

In 2011, Medical Recovery Services, LLC (“the Collection Agency”), filed this action against defendants Allison and Nathan Olsen to recover on two entities’ unpaid medical bills. In 2012, the parties stipulated that the Collection Agency could recover a judgment against defendants and that it would forbear executing on the judgment if the defendants paid $100 per month between the 25th and 30th of each month until the judgment was paid. The court entered a judgment providing that the Collection Agency could recover from the Defendants the sum of $4,973.46. Defendants failed to make any payment on the judgment, and the Collection Agency attempted to execute on the judgment. The Collection Agency sought to execute on defendants’ bank account, but the account had been closed. The Collection Agency then sought a continuing garnishment to obtain Mr. Olsen’s disposable earnings from Petersen, Moss, Hall & Olsen, but that garnishment was returned unsatisfied because “Defendant is a partner in the firm, not an employee.” The Collection Agency also sought to execute on Mr. Olsen’s partnership interest, but the writ was returned unsatisfied because Mr. Olsen’s equity in the partnership was stated to be zero. The Collection Agency then sought to depose Stephen Hall, the partner in the law firm who had signed the responses to the writs of garnishment. The Collection Agency agreed to forgo taking his deposition if Hall would make $250 bi-monthly payments until the judgment was paid in full. Hall made those payments, but the Collection Agency would not accept final payment endorsed "payment in full" because it wanted to seek post-judgment attorney fees. Defendants filed a motion seeking to compel the Collection Agency to record a satisfaction of judgment in every county in which it had recorded the original judgment. The Agency responded by filing for an award of post-judgment fees it incurred trying to collect on its judgment. The Agency's motion was denied, and the Agency estopped from further collection of fees, citing the agreement reached in satisfying the judgment. The district court upheld the magistrate court's judgment. Finding that Hall only agreed to satisfy the judgment, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in affirming the magistrate. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Medical Recovery Svcs. v. Olsen" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a decision of the Industrial Commission (the Commission) finding that Edward Jordan failed to prove entitlement to additional benefits for accidents that occurred during his employment. Jordan served over twenty-one years in the Navy, retiring in 2003. While in the Navy, Jordan was never assessed with a service-related disability involving his cervical area.1 After retiring from the Navy, Jordan and his wife moved to Boise, and he started working for Dean Foods as a milk delivery driver. On May 16, 2006, Jordan suffered an injury while trying to move a stack of milk containers (the 2006 accident). Jordan testified he experienced a sudden onset of pain in his neck and shoulders along with numbness extending down his arms. He notified a supervisor after he dropped a gallon of milk due to the numbness. Jordan sought treatment for neck, cervical, and radiculopathy symptoms. Jordan would document complaints about his neck to his employer over the next five years. Jordan underwent surgery in 2012. Jordan recovered from the surgery without complication, but Dr. Doerr imposed lifting restrictions. As a result of the restrictions, Dean Foods terminated Jordan’s employment after it determined that it was unable to make reasonable accommodations which would allow Jordan to accomplish his essential job functions. The Commission chose not to adopt the referee’s recommendation although it also decided Jordan’s claims in favor of Employer/Surety. The Commission’s decision differed from the referee’s recommendation because the Commission decided to address the merits of Jordan’s claim related to the 2006 accident rather than holding that he abandoned those claims. After review of the Commission record, the Supreme Court concluded there was no reversible error and affirmed. View "Jordan v. Dean Foods" on Justia Law

Charles Ballard filed suit for wrongful death and medical malpractice against Silk Touch Laser, LLP (“Silk Touch”) and its owner Dr. Brian Kerr. In 2010, Charles’ wife Krystal Ballard underwent a liposuction and fat transfer procedure at Silk Touch in Eagle. Krystal died less than a week later from septic shock caused by unknown bacteria in her right buttock. Charles’ suit alleged that the bacteria that caused Krystal’s death were introduced into her body during the procedure at Silk Touch because certain reusable medical equipment was not properly disinfected and sterilized. The first trial ended in mistrial. Upon retrial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Ballard. Silk Touch raises twenty-one issues on appeal, challenging several of the district court’s evidentiary rulings, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict, several of the jury instructions, and the district court’s award of costs and attorney fees. Silk Touch also alleged that the jury verdict should be overturned because the district court permitted the jurors to submit questions to witnesses and the district court made improper comments on the evidence during trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court except for the award of fees, which was vacated and the issue remanded for reconsideration. View "Ballard v. Kerr, M.D." on Justia Law

Carol and Eric English appealed the dismissal of the their medical negligence claims against James Taylor, D.O., and Eastern Idaho Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center (collectively, the Respondents). Carol English sustained stroke injuries after undergoing a medical procedure performed by Respondents. The Englishes subsequently filed a complaint alleging the Respondents were negligent in performing the procedure, which they alleged caused Carol’s injuries. The district court dismissed the Englishes’ claims on timeliness grounds. Finding that the district court correctly determined that the Englishes' second amended complaint naming Respondents was barred by the applicable statute of limitations for medical malpractice suits, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "English v. Taylor" on Justia Law

H. Peter Doble II appealed a district court’s order awarding Interstate Amusements, Inc. (Interstate) attorney fees. Interstate owned and operated a number of movie theaters throughout Magic Valley. As part of its business, Interstate marketed and sold vouchers known as “Cinema Cash:” vouchers purchased in $1.00 increments and could be redeemed for movie tickets and concessions sold at Interstate’s various theater locations. Each voucher was clearly marked with an expiration date after which the voucher was no longer redeemable. Doble attempted to redeem an expired Cinema Cash voucher at one of Interstate’s movie theaters in Twin Falls. Doble filed a Complaint against Interstate in which he alleged that the issuance of Cinema Cash violated Idaho’s Consumer Protection Act (ICPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Interstate. With regard to fees, the court found that Doble brought his action “frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation” and awarded Interstate attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121. The district court then entered an amended judgment stating: “The defendant, Interstate Amusement, Inc., shall recover from the plaintiff costs in the amount of $320.44 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,972.50, for a total of $8,292.94.” Finding no reversible error in the district court's fee award, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Doble v. Interstate Amusements, Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a series of cases concerning the scope and location of Marti and Vernon Mortensen’s easement across Dennis and Sherrie Akers’ property. This dispute has made multiple trips to the Idaho Supreme Court. From its last trip, the Supreme Court remanded because the Akers were only entitled to an award of attorney fees under Idaho Code section 6-202 for those fees incurred in prosecuting the trespass claim and not for other theories of recovery. The case was remanded for the “sole purpose” of apportioning the attorney fees the Akers were entitled to recover for prosecuting their trespass claim. On remand, Marti Mortensen argued the Akers had not provided sufficient evidence to allocate attorney fees between the various causes of action. However, the Akers produced seventy pages of billing documentation, and their counsel went through that billing and marked every item that was chargeable to prosecuting the trespass claim, arriving at $55,917.21 in attorney fees. The district court found that this figure was reasonable and awarded fees in that amount. The district court then entered judgment awarding the Akers “apportioned attorney fees jointly and severally against each defendant in the amount of $55,917.21.” Since that time Marti’s former husband, Vernon Mortensen, passed away. Marti appealed. Finding no reversible error in the fee award, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Akers v. Mortensen" on Justia Law

Charles and Donna Nickerson appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of PHH Mortgage and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. The suit involved an action for judicial foreclosure of a loan by PHH Mortgage against the Nickersons, and third-party claims against J.P. Morgan Chase by the Nickersons. The Nickersons argued they were entitled to relief based on: mistakes by the court; surprise due to the actions and withdrawal of their former counsel; excusable neglect due to their reliance on their former counsel; new evidence showing PHH did not have standing to pursue foreclosure; fraud regarding PHH’s chain of title, the amount of default, and coercion of the Nickersons at closing; and misconduct of the opposing parties regarding the depositions of the Nickersons and the submission of a fraudulent affidavit. The district court denied the Nickersons’ motions, concluding that the Nickersons failed to present admissible evidence to support their claims. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of PHH Mortgage, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "PHH Mortgage v. Nickerson" on Justia Law

At issue before the Supreme Court in this matter was an action for declaratory relief related to planning and zoning in Canyon County. Appellant Coalition for Agriculture’s Future sued respondents Canyon County and the Canyon County Board of Commissioners (collectively “Canyon County”) under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking to invalidate Canyon County’s 2011 comprehensive plan and amendments thereto for noncompliance with Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). The district court granted Canyon County’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of standing. The Coalition appealed. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Coalition for Agricultures's Future v. Canyon County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-appellants Charles and Janice Lepper filed a medical malpractice suit against defendants Eastern Idaho Health Service, Inc. d/b/a Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center (EIRMC) and Dr. Stephen R. Marano, (Dr. Marano). The Leppers alleged Dr. Marano rendered Charles a paraplegic. The Leppers appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that based on the language of its Scheduling Order, the Leppers’ expert witness disclosures required disclosure of all expert witness opinions, including foundational facts required by statute. After review, the Idaho Supreme Court vacated and remanded."We decline to hold the Leppers to a higher disclosure standard than what was required by the plain language of the Scheduling Order. Again, the district court was free to issue a more detailed scheduling order explicitly requiring such foundational facts, but without doing so, the Leppers could not be held to more demanding disclosure requirements that they had no prior notice of. We note that the supplemental affidavits in this case detailing the applicable standard of care for both experts were provided well before the discovery deadline. In any event, we hold that because the district court read requirements into its Scheduling Order that did not appear on the face of the order, the court abused its discretion in excluding [The Leppers'] experts." Because the district court's decision regarding the experts carried through and was the basis of the denial of the Leppers' motions for reconsideration, the Court determined the district court abused its discretion in those decisions too. View "Lepper v. Eastern Idaho Health Services" on Justia Law