Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Aaron Powers owned a lot within a subdivision governed by covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&Rs), as well as an adjacent parcel he intended to develop. The adjacent parcel lacked access to a public or private road, so Powers sought to construct a road across a sixty-foot strip of his lot to provide access. After the homeowners association (HOA) denied permission, Powers obtained a boundary line adjustment and amended plat from Teton County, effectively moving the strip into the adjacent parcel. Carl Jordan, a subdivision homeowner and HOA board member, filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the road’s construction, arguing that the CC&Rs still applied to the strip and prohibited the road.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Teton County, granted summary judgment for Jordan, declaring that the CC&Rs continued to apply to the strip, that Powers violated the CC&Rs by splitting the lot, and that the CC&Rs categorically prohibited construction of the road. The court issued a permanent injunction against Powers and awarded attorney fees and costs to Jordan. Powers moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and he appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court held that the CC&Rs continued to apply to the sixty-foot strip despite the boundary adjustment and that Powers was required to obtain approval from the HOA’s Design Committee before constructing the road, which he had not done. However, the Court reversed the lower court’s declaration that the CC&Rs categorically prohibited road construction and that the boundary adjustment constituted a prohibited lot split, finding those issues either unsupported or moot. The permanent injunction and the award of attorney fees and costs were vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Jordan v. Powers" on Justia Law

A Wyoming limited liability company leased commercial property in northern Idaho to a Delaware corporation, which was formerly known as a North Carolina corporation. The lease required the tenant to pay $1,000,000 annually in rent, increasing by 3% each year, on a triple net basis. During the lease, the tenant made some payments directly to the lender on the property’s mortgage, but these were less than the required rent. Additionally, a related entity paid over $8 million to a contractor for construction of a new residence on the property. The tenant argued that these construction payments should be credited as rent, and that it was not required to pay rent after the first month because the landlord failed to deliver a corporate retreat as allegedly contemplated.The District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bonner County, granted summary judgment to the landlord for breach of lease, awarding damages and attorney fees. The court found that the tenant failed to pay the full rent required under the lease and rejected the tenant’s argument that construction payments should be credited as rent, finding no evidence of an agreement to that effect. The court also dismissed the tenant’s counterclaim for unjust enrichment, concluding that the lease governed the parties’ obligations and that any improvements became the landlord’s property. The court denied the tenant’s motion for reconsideration, finding no evidence that the tenant funded the construction payments or that such payments were intended as rent.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding the tenant’s failure to pay rent, and no evidence supported the tenant’s claims or affirmative defenses. The Supreme Court also affirmed the award of attorney fees to the landlord and awarded attorney fees on appeal under the lease. View "Erie Properties, LLC v. Global Growth Holdings, Inc." on Justia Law

A religious corporation in Boise owned property that it used for its church activities. The church entered into a Shared Use Agreement with the local YMCA, allowing the YMCA to operate a daycare program on a portion of the property during weekdays. The YMCA paid the church a monthly amount that was below market rent, intended to help cover maintenance expenses. The daycare provided services to working parents in downtown Boise, including those who could not afford to pay full price, and the church considered this partnership part of its mission outreach to the community.The Ada County Board of Commissioners granted the church only an 82% property tax exemption, determining that the portion used by the YMCA was not exempt because it was leased for business or commercial purposes. The Ada County Board of Equalization affirmed this decision after a hearing, and the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District also affirmed, reasoning that the daycare use was not a religious purpose of the church and that the Shared Use Agreement constituted a lease for business or commercial purposes. The district court declined to consider the church’s alternative argument for a charitable exemption because it was not raised in the original application.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the statutory requirements for property tax exemptions for religious entities under Idaho Code section 63-602B. The court held that the church’s partnership with the YMCA to provide daycare services was in connection with its religious purposes, as supported by the church’s mission statement and evidence of its outreach activities. The court further held that, although the Shared Use Agreement was a lease, the use of the property for daycare constituted use of recreational facilities and meeting rooms in connection with the church’s purposes, and thus was not a business or commercial purpose under the statute. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court’s decision and held that the church was entitled to a 100% property tax exemption. View "First Presbyterian Church of Boise, Idaho, Inc. v. Ada County" on Justia Law

After suffering spinal fractures in a car accident, the plaintiff received surgical treatment and post-operative care from a neurosurgeon and a surgical nurse. The plaintiff was insured at the time, and the medical provider received his insurance information but did not bill the insurer. Instead, the provider filed a medical lien for over $180,000 against any potential recovery the plaintiff might obtain from a third-party tortfeasor, pursuant to Idaho Code section 45-704B. The plaintiff’s attorney objected, arguing that the Idaho Patient Act (IPA) required the provider to bill the patient’s insurance before filing such a lien. The provider maintained the lien was proper under the medical lien statute and did not comply with the IPA.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County, reviewed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The court determined that the medical lien was not subject to the IPA because it did not constitute an “extraordinary collection action” as defined by the Act. The court also found a factual dispute regarding whether the charges were reasonable, ultimately concluding after a bench trial that the physician’s charges were reasonable but the nurse’s charges should be excluded. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, and the plaintiff appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reversed the district court’s decision, holding that the medical lien did constitute an “extraordinary collection action” under the IPA because it was a lien placed on the patient’s property in connection with a debt. The Supreme Court further held that, because the provider failed to bill the patient’s insurance before filing the lien, as required by the IPA, the lien was invalid. The judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff and declare the lien invalid. The Supreme Court also awarded attorney fees on appeal to the plaintiff. View "DeKlotz v. NS Support, LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on approximately 930 acres of agricultural land owned by two trusts near Pocatello, Idaho. The trusts entered into a purchase and sales agreement with a developer, Millennial Development Partners, to sell a strip of land for a new road, Northgate Parkway, which was to provide access to their property. The trusts allege that Millennial and its partners, along with the City of Pocatello, failed to construct promised access points and infrastructure, and that the developers and city officials conspired to devalue the trusts’ property, interfere with potential sales, and ultimately force a sale below market value. The trusts claim these actions diminished their property’s value and constituted breach of contract, fraud, interference with economic advantage, regulatory taking, and civil conspiracy.After the trusts filed suit in the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Bannock County, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The trusts sought to delay the proceedings to complete additional discovery, arguing that the defendants had not adequately responded to discovery requests. The district court denied both of the trusts’ motions to continue, struck their late response to the summary judgment motions as untimely, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice and awarding attorney fees to the defendants. The trusts appealed these decisions.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court’s denial of the trusts’ motions to continue, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the district court erred by failing to analyze whether the defendants had met their burden under the summary judgment standard and appeared to have granted summary judgment as a sanction for the trusts’ untimely response. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, and declined to award attorney fees on appeal. View "Rupp v. City of Pocatello" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs owned three contiguous, landlocked parcels in Ammon, Idaho, with no access to a public road. The property directly south, which bordered an arterial road, was owned by another party. In 2017, the plaintiffs sought to sell their parcels and attempted to purchase an easement from the southern neighbor, but negotiations failed. They then filed suit to establish an easement by necessity over the southern property. The defendants, successors to the original southern owner, raised several affirmative defenses but did not initially cite a statute of limitations.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they were entitled to an easement by necessity. On the first appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the four-year statute of limitations in Idaho Code section 5-224 applied to such claims and remanded for fact-finding on when the statute accrued. On remand, the district court found the claim accrued in 2004 and was time-barred, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the statute of limitations defense was waived, the summary judgment was erroneous, and the prior Supreme Court decision should be reconsidered.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case again. It held that the statute of limitations in section 5-224 does not apply to easement by necessity claims, departing from its earlier decision. The court reasoned that such easements arise at severance and exist as long as necessity continues, and applying a statute of limitations would undermine Idaho’s public policy favoring the full use of land. The court vacated the district court’s summary judgment for the defendants, reinstated the original grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, and remanded solely to determine the proper location of the easement. The plaintiffs were awarded costs on appeal but not attorney fees. View "Easterling v. Clark" on Justia Law

Jonathan and Angela McOmber purchased a home from Shane and Keri Thompson. After the purchase, the McOmbers discovered significant issues with the property, including dry rot, mold, and water damage, which were not anticipated. They also found that the roof leaked and was not professionally installed, and that the previous owner had rewired parts of the kitchen improperly. The McOmbers relied on the sellers’ disclosures, which indicated that a drainage problem had been fixed and that there were no current mold issues or roof leaks. The McOmbers did not conduct an independent property inspection.The McOmbers filed a lawsuit against the Thompsons for breach of duty to disclose/fraud, common law fraud, and breach of contract, among other claims. The district court dismissed Angela McOmber from two of the claims and denied the McOmbers’ motion to add a claim for constructive trust. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Thompsons, finding that they had complied with the Property Condition Disclosure Act by disclosing known defects. The court also awarded attorney fees to the Thompsons based on a provision in the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (REPSA). The McOmbers’ motion for reconsideration was denied.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decisions in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court held that the Thompsons complied with the disclosure requirements and that the McOmbers failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the falsity of the Thompsons’ statements. The court also found that the district court did not err in denying the motion to amend the complaint or the motion for reconsideration. However, the court reversed the award of attorney fees against Angela McOmber, as she was not a party to the REPSA, and remanded for the district court to issue an amended judgment. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "McOmber v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the interpretation and application of Idaho Code section 63-602G, which governs the homestead property tax exemption. In 2020, the Idaho Legislature amended the statute to remove the April 15 application deadline and added that the exemption "shall be effective upon the date of the application." The Idaho State Tax Commission issued guidance stating that the exemption should not be prorated based on the application date, which was supported by an Attorney General Opinion. However, Latah and Lincoln Counties disagreed and prorated the exemption based on the application date.The Counties petitioned for judicial review in their respective district courts, which were consolidated. The district court ruled in favor of the Counties, determining that the Tax Commission exceeded its authority and that the statute was ambiguous, allowing for proration based on legislative intent. The Tax Commission appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of Idaho reviewed the case and held that the plain language of Idaho Code section 63-602G requires the retroactive application of the homestead exemption to January 1 of the tax year during which the application was submitted, regardless of the application submission date. The Court found that the statute was unambiguous and that the exemption applies to the entire tax year, not prorated based on the application date.The Court also determined that the Tax Commission did not exceed its statutory authority when it issued the May 2022 Order directing the Counties to apply the full homestead exemption. The Court concluded that the Tax Commission's order was within its constitutional and statutory powers to ensure uniformity and compliance with property tax laws.The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court's order, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for entry of an order affirming the Tax Commission’s May 2022 Order. View "Latah County v. Idaho State Tax Commission" on Justia Law

Mark Radford and the State Board of Land Commissioners and the Idaho Department of Lands (collectively, "the State") were involved in a contract dispute over the State's easement on Radford's property. The State used the easement to access and manage state endowment lands leased for grazing. Historically, the State accessed the easement through the Hallo Property, which Radford purchased in 2020, subsequently revoking the State's access. Radford claimed that an email from the State indicated the easement was no longer needed, leading him to file a lawsuit alleging the State breached the termination clause of the easement agreement by not providing a statement confirming termination.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of Idaho granted summary judgment in favor of the State, determining that the termination clause gave the State sole and subjective power to decide whether the easement was necessary. The court found that the State had not made any determination that the easement was no longer needed, thus dismissing Radford's breach of contract claim. Radford appealed the decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the State had no contractual duty to assess whether the easement was necessary for its granted purposes. The agreement's termination clause did not impose an obligation on the State to periodically reassess the easement's necessity. The court also rejected Radford's argument that the State's refusal to terminate the easement violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as the State had not determined the easement was no longer needed. The court awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal to the State, concluding that Radford's appeal was unreasonably pursued. View "Radford v. Van Orden" on Justia Law

Elanore Vaughan purchased a ticket and signed an online liability waiver to go tubing at Eagle Island State Park, operated by Gateway Parks, LLC. The next day, Vaughan was injured when her tube went over an embankment and crashed into a flatbed trailer housing snowmaking equipment. Vaughan sued Gateway, alleging negligence and premises liability, claiming Gateway failed to maintain the tubing hill safely and created a hazard by placing the trailer at the end of the tubing run.The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Idaho denied Gateway's motion to dismiss Vaughan's complaint. Gateway argued that Vaughan's claims were barred by the liability waiver she signed and the Responsibilities and Liabilities of Skiers and Ski Area Operators Act. The district court found that while the Act applied, there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the placement of the snowmaking equipment. The court also concluded that the liability waiver did not preclude Vaughan's claims. Gateway then sought and was granted permission to appeal the denial of its motion for summary judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The court held that the electronic liability waiver Vaughan signed precluded her claims against Gateway. The waiver explicitly acknowledged the risks of tubing, including collisions with manmade obstacles such as snowmaking equipment. The court determined that the waiver's language was broad enough to encompass Vaughan's accident and injuries. Consequently, the court directed the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of Gateway and dismiss Vaughan's complaint. The court also denied Gateway's request for attorney fees on appeal, as the gravamen of Vaughan's lawsuit was a tort, not a commercial transaction. View "Vaughan v. Gateway Park, LLC" on Justia Law