Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Franklin Building Supply Co., Inc. (“FBS”) filed suit against Aaron Michael Hymas to recover money owed on an open account for construction supplies, equipment, and labor supplied to Crestwood Construction, Inc. FBS claims that Hymas guarantied any unpaid balance on Crestwood’s account. The district court granted FBS’s motion for summary judgment. Shortly thereafter, the district court permitted FBS to correct an error in an affidavit submitted in support of summary judgment regarding the amount of interest owed on the outstanding balance. Hymas twice moved the court to reconsider its order granting summary judgment and the district court denied both motions. He timely appealed. Finding no reversible error, however, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Franklin Building Supply Co. v. Hymas" on Justia Law

Richard Giesler and Idaho Trust Deeds, LLC appealed a district court's judgment declaring the rights and obligations on a contract. This case arose out of several oral and written agreements between Giesler and Gregory Hull that related to purchasing and subdividing property. After a bench trial, the court found that Hull sold the property to Giesler, but the parties had a later oral contract where Hull promised to pay off Giesler's loans in exchange for half of the subdivision's net profits. The court held that neither party materially breached the contract and ordered Hull to timely pay Giesler's loans and Giesler to complete the subdivision within certain deadlines. On appeal, Giesler argued Hull failed to prove damages and the district court's remedies were erroneous. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court found that substantial and competent evidence supported the district court's findings of fact, but that the district court erred in its remedies. The Court vacated the portions of the district court's decision regarding: (1) the conversion payment of half the irrigation equipment's value; (2) the deadlines for completing Parcels 2 and 3; and (3) the provisions that order consequences to encourage performance under the contract. View "Hull v. Giesler" on Justia Law

In 2010, Idaho Power entered into two Firm Energy Sales Agreements, one with New Energy Two, LLC, and the other with New Energy Three, LLC, under which Idaho Power agreed to purchase electricity from them that was to be generated by the use of biogas. The agreement with New Energy Two stated that the project would be operational on October 1, 2012, and the agreement with New Energy Three stated that the project would be operational on December 1, 2012. Both contracts were submitted for approval to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and were both approved on July 1, 2010. Each of the agreements contained a force majeure clause. By written notice, New Energy Two and New Energy Three informed Idaho Power that they were claiming the occurrence of a force majeure event, which was ongoing proceedings before the Public Utilities Commission. New Energy asserted that until those proceedings were finally resolved "the entire circumstance of continued viability of all renewable energy projects in Idaho is undecided"and that as a consequence "renewable energy project lenders are unwilling to lend in Idaho pending the outcome of these proceedings."Idaho Power filed petitions with the Commission against New Energy Two and New Energy Three seeking declaratory judgments that no force majeure event, as that term was defined in the agreements, had occurred and that Idaho Power could terminate both agreements for the failure of the projects to be operational by the specified dates. New Energy filed a motion to dismiss both petitions on the ground that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to interpret or enforce contracts. After briefing from both parties, the Commission denied New Energy's motion to dismiss. The Commission's order was an interlocutory order that is not appealable as a matter of right. New Energy filed a motion with the Supreme Court requesting a permissive appeal pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 12, and the Court granted the motion. New Energy then appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's order. View "Idaho Power v. New Energy Two" on Justia Law

In 2006, Richard Myers owned the property at issue in this case. At the time, the property was subject to a deed of trust in favor of First Horizon Home Loans. Myers enlisted Michael Horn and his company, Frontier Development Group (FDG) to build a residence on the property, which First Horizon financed. However, in April of 2007, Myers filed for bankruptcy, and First Horizon rescinded the construction loan and instructed FDG to halt construction when the project was only fifty percent complete. The structure was left exposed to the elements for fourteen months. Following Myers' bankruptcy, foreclosure proceedings were initiated, and Myers hired Kathleen Horn (Michael Horn's wife), of Windermere Real Estate/Teton Valley to list the property for sale. The Caravellas, who were Ohio residents, looking for property in the Teton Valley, contacted their real estate agent who put them in touch with Kathleen Horn who provided them with information on the stalled Myers project. Kathleen Horn eventually put the Caravellas in touch with Michael Horn. The Caravellas traveled to Idaho, met with Kathleen Horn, and spent two days inspecting the property. The Caravellas testified that Kathleen Horn minimized issues with the house, telling them that it was "in good shape,""structurally sound,"and a "great house."The Caravellas chose not to have a professional inspection performed and closed on May 5, 2008. After closing, the Caravellas and Michael Horn agreed that Horn would complete construction on the house in accordance with Myers' original plans. In reaching this agreement, the Caravellas testified that they believed they were dealing with Horn as an individual. The total contract price for the first phase of work that the Caravellas authorized was $88,500. However, the Caravellas paid FDG $138,097.24 for the first phase before refusing to pay any more. Much of the money that the Caravellas paid to FDG was for unauthorized work or work that was completed in a nonconforming or substandard manner. The Caravellas hired a second builder to complete the first phase and to remedy the substandard work. FDG initiated this action by filing a complaint to foreclose on a lien for construction services and building materials provided to, but not paid for by, the Caravellas. The Caravellas filed an amended counterclaim alleging that FDG and Horn: (1) breached the parties' contract; (2) breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (3) violated the Idaho Consumer Protection Act; (4) breached the implied warranty of habitability; (5) committed slander of title; (6) committed fraud and misrepresentation; (7) engaged in a civil conspiracy; and (8) acted negligently. The district court held that FDG's lien was defective and dismissed it. The district court also held that FDG breached its contract with the Caravellas by: (1) failing to complete agreed upon work in conformity with the plans and in a workmanlike manner; (2) charging the Caravellas for unauthorized and defective work; and (3) substantially overbilling the Caravellas for work and materials that were not authorized and never provided. As to the Caravellas' fraud counterclaim, the district court concluded that the Caravellas failed to establish all nine elements of fraud and dismissed the claim. The district court also concluded that Horn was not personally liable. The district court awarded the Caravellas $113,775.45 in attorney fees, $5,484.83 in costs as a matter of right, and $200.00 in discretionary costs. The Caravellas timely appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred by applying the incorrect evidentiary standard to the Caravellas' fraud counterclaim, but that error was harmless. The Court affirmed that portion of the district court's judgment dismissing the Caravellas' fraud claim, and reversed that portion of the judgment dismissing the Caravellas' claims against Michael Horn personally. In all other respects, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Frontier Development Grp v. Caravella" on Justia Law

This case arose from Agrisource’s breach of contract claim against Robert Johnson (Johnson). Johnson argued that he was not liable on the contract because he was an agent for a disclosed principal named “Johnson Grain Inc.” which was owned by Neil Brown. Agrisource leased a grain elevator in Ririe from Johnson’s father, Wydell. For several years prior to 2006, Johnson was Agrisource’s employee and managed the elevator. Agrisource terminated its elevator lease in summer 2006, and Johnson was then unemployed. Brown purchased the grain elevator in August 2006 from Wydell. Brown was Johnson Grain Inc.’s majority shareholder from August 2006 through December 2007. Johnson and Brown opened a business checking account under Johnson Grain Inc.’s name with both men as signatories. Johnson entered into two contracts to sell durum wheat to Agrisource. Agrisource did not receive 15,527.87 bushels of wheat promised by Johnson Grain. Agrisource contacted both Johnson and Brown for two years about the undelivered wheat. Neither party delivered the wheat, so in 2009 Agrisource purchased wheat elsewhere. This resulted in $51,241.97 in damages. In 2010, Agrisource filed a claim alleging breach of the 2007 contract against Brown, Brown’s wife, and Neil Brown, Inc., Johnson, Johnson’s wife, and Johnson’s corporation as defendants. Agrisource alleged that Johnson was an individual doing business as Johnson Grain when he entered into the contract. Johnson appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Agrisource, Inc. The district court held that there was no genuine disputed issue of material fact as to Johnson’s lack of disclosure of his agency and alleged principal. Johnson argued on appeal that Agrisource had notice that Johnson was the principal’s agent because Agrisource should have known Johnson was an agent and disputed issues of fact existed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Agrisource and the denial of Johnson’s third motion to reconsider. However, the Court vacated the district court’s denial of Johnson’s request for I.R.C.P. 60(b) relief and remanded for the district court to analyze Johnson’s third affidavit in the context of Johnson’s request for I.R.C.P. 60(b) relief. View "Agrisource, Inc v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc.formed a general partnership named MRI Associates. The parties executed a written partnership agreement for the purpose acquiring and operating diagnostic and therapeutic devices, equipment, and accessories, beginning with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. MRI Associates formed two limited partnerships: MRI Limited Partnership (which owned and operated an MRI scanner located on Saint Alphonsus' campus) (“MRI Center”); and MRI Mobile Limited Partnership (which owned and operated mobile MRI scanners) (“MRI Mobile”). For decades, a group of radiologists known as Gem State Radiologists had interpreted medical images pursuant to a contract that gave them the exclusive right to serve the radiological needs of patients of Saint Alphonsus. After the formation of MRI Associates, they interpreted MRI scans performed at MRI Center. In 1998, the Radiologists began planning to construct and operate an outpatient facility in Boise that was located away from the hospital. The proposed facility would provide a full range of medical imaging services, including MRI imaging. There were negotiations among the Radiologists, Saint Alphonsus, and MRI Associates to have one medical imaging entity, but those negotiations were unsuccessful. There was evidence that Saint Alphonsus was negotiating against MRI Associates with the Radiologists. In 1999, the Radiologists formed Intermountain Medical Imaging, LLC, (“IMI”), and on September 1, 1999, they opened their facility. Saint Alphonsus began negotiating with the Radiologists to partner with them in the imaging center. In 2001, Saint Alphonsus became a member of IMI. IMI opened another facility in Meridian. In 2004, Saint Alphonsus gave notice to MRI Associates that it would dissociate from the partnership. Under the partnership agreement, upon dissociation Saint Alphonsus could not compete with MRI Associates for a period of one year. Saint Alphonsus then filed this action seeking to recover the value of its partnership interest from MRI Associates, and MRI Associates responded by filing a multi-count counterclaim and claims against third parties. The third-party claims were ultimately dismissed. The jury found Saint Alphonsus liable on all causes of action, and MRI Associates was awarded a judgment in the sum of $36.3 million. That judgment was vacated on appeal, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The case was again tried to a jury. The jury found in favor of the MRI Entities on each of the claims. Under the judgment entered by the district court, the awards under each claim for relief were in the alternative. The highest award to each of the MRI Entities was: $3,906,338 to MRI Associates; $25,828,208 to MRI Center; and $22,349,967 to MRI Mobile, which totaled $52,084,513. On its complaint, Saint Alphonsus was awarded $4.6 million against MRI Associates. Saint Alphonsus appealed, and the MRI Entities cross-appealed. Finding no reversible error in the district court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "St. Alphonsus Diversified Care v. MRI Associates, LLP" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a contract dispute when Robert Coleman, Profits Plus Capital Management, LLC (“Profits Plus”), and Dollars and Sense Growth Fund Limited Partnership (“Dollars and Sense”) filed a claim for declaratory judgment against Jeffrey Podesta and Street Search, LLC. Coleman, Profits Plus, and Dollars and Sense sought a judgment declaring that they did not have a contract with either Podesta or Street Search. Podesta and Street Search then counterclaimed seeking damages for breach of contract, fraud, constructive fraud, and breach of fiduciary duties. Ultimately, only Podesta and Street Search’s breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims went to the jury, which decided those claims in favor of Coleman, Profits Plus, and Dollars and Sense. Podesta and Street Search now appeal a number of the district court’s decisions made before, during, and after trial. We affirm the district court’s decisions. View "Profits Plus Capital Mgmt. v. Podesta" on Justia Law

Roger and Barbara Stephens owned a parcel of real property consisting of about 270 acres on the west side of the highway and another parcel consisting of about 83 acres on the east side of the highway. They hired a realtor to sell the parcel on the west side of the highway. The realtor asked Northern Title Company of Idaho, Inc., to begin the initial title work for a sale of the property, including preparing a legal description for the sale of the parcel on the west side of the highway. Stephen Cummings noticed a "For Sale" sign on the Stephenses' property. Cummings negotiated to purchase the Stephens' property. He was faxed a copy of the commitment for title insurance issued in connection with the transaction. The legal description in the document included the Stephenses' property on both sides of the highway and two additional parcels they did not own. Based upon the legal description in those documents, Cummings believed that the property being sold included both parcels of the Stephenses' property. Northern Title discovered that the legal description it had prepared for use in the real estate contract and its title commitment for that transaction erroneously included the Stephenses' real property located east of the highway and two parcels of land they did not own. The legal description consisted of five paragraphs, each describing a separate parcel of real property. In an effort to correct that error, Northern Title created a revised legal description by inserting between the first and second paragraphs the words, "Except all of that portion of the following described land lying easterly of U.S. Highway 30." That change excluded the two parcels of property not owned by the Stephenses, but it did not exclude their land lying east of the highway because it was described in the first paragraph. On the date of closing, Northern Title recorded a warranty deed (Original Deed) granting to Cummings the real property described in the revised legal description, which was attached to the deed as Exhibit A. The legal description included the Stephenses' property on the east side of the highway. Mr. Stephens went to the county courthouse to pay the real estate taxes on the 83 acres of land east of the highway and was informed that he no longer owned that property. Cummings filed this action against Mr. Stephens over the erroneous deed. Stephens answered, denying Cummings's claims, and filed a third-party claim against Northern Title. He later dropped his third-party claim in exchange for Northern Title agreeing to indemnify him from any losses. Stephens then filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that there was a mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake in the legal description of the real property being sold. The district court held that there was a genuine issue of fact regarding mutual mistake, but it granted the motion on the ground that the undisputed evidence showed a unilateral mistake. One of the realtors had filed an affidavit stating that prior to the sale he had told Mr. Cummings that only the land west of the highway was being sold, and Mr. Cummings did not deny that fact. Cummings successfully moved for reconsideration, with the district court finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to what Cummings had been told about what property he was purchasing. Cummings then amended his complaint, adding Northern Title as a defendant and alleging that by recording the Correction Deed, Stephens and Northern Title breached the warranties of title in the Original Deed, converted the 83 acres lying east of the highway, and slandered Cummings's title to the real property. The district court granted Stephens's motion for involuntary dismissal as to all of the claims against him. And in its written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the district court denied all of Cummings's claims against Northern Title except one. It found that Northern Title acted negligently as a title and abstract company, and it awarded Cummings damages in the sum of $50,000, which was the sum he had paid to obtain an assignment of its contract to purchase the Stephenses' property. The court awarded Mr. Stephens costs and attorney fees against Cummings, and it awarded Mr. Cummings costs and attorney fees against Northern Title. Mr. Cummings appealed and Northern Title cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Cummings' claims against Stephens, and reversed claims against Northern Title on the ground that it assumed the duty of being an abstractor of title. View "Cummings v. Stephens" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a fraud, breach of contract, and breach of warranty action brought by April Beguesse, Inc. (ABI) against defendants Kenneth Rammell, the estate of Christa Beguesse, and Christa Beguesse, Inc. (CBI), and a breach of contract counterclaim brought by CBI against ABI. The parties went to trial and the jury returned a verdict in favor of ABI on all claims. Defendants moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or in the alternative a new trial. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for JNOV on the finding of fraud by Christa’s estate and dismissed that claim. The district court also granted Defendants a new trial on the issue of damages unless ABI accepted a remittitur for damages assessed against CBI only. The district court denied Defendants’ motion on the remaining claims of breach of contract, breach of warranty, and fraud. ABI accepted the remittitur. Defendants appealed the district court’s denial of their motion. Defendants also sought reversal of the district court’s judgment or in the alternative a new trial on their counterclaim. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "April Beguesse, Inc. v. Rammell" on Justia Law

In January 2007, the Bank of Idaho made two construction loans to developers who planned to construct a fourplex on each of two adjoining lots in Idaho Falls. The bank loaned one sum of money to build a fourplex on Lot 1 and another sum for a fourplex on Lot 2. The bank secured a separate policy of title insurance for each lot that was issued by the predecessor of First American Title Insurance Company. Each policy included an endorsement that the parties understood would insure against loss or damage that the bank might sustain by reason of a multifamily residence not being constructed on the lot. After discussion with representatives of the city, the developers changed their original plans and built both fourplexes on Lot 2 and built a parking lot with storm water retention and landscaping on Lot 1. The developers later defaulted on their loans, and the bank foreclosed on both deeds of trust. At the foreclosure sale, the bank acquired each lot by making a full credit bid on all amounts due and owing on the note secured by the deed of trust. In 2010, the bank submitted a claim under the title policy issue with respect to Lot 1 to recover under the endorsement. The insurance company rejected the claim and the bank filed suit to recover under the policy. The district court granted the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed this action. The bank then appealed. The Supreme Court concluded after its review that the district court erred in holding that the title insurance company had no liability under the policy. The endorsement provided that "[t]he Company hereby insures the owner of the indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage against loss or damage which the insured shall sustain by reason of the failure of [a multifamily residence to be built on Lot 1]." The endorsement insured against "loss or damage" that the bank argued was the failure of the multifamily residence to be constructed on the lot. It did not define what constituted "loss or damage." Subsections of the pertinent indemnity clause stated limits on the insurance company's liability, but it did not define loss or damage. Accordingly, the district court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Bank of Idaho v. First American Title" on Justia Law