Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Several neighbors all owning lakefront property objected when others planned on building a dock on the lake and using a portion of what was believed to be a designated common area. Plaintiffs appealed a district court judgment that dismissed their claims that they had the right to use parcels of property designated as common areas in a plat that was void because the persons who recorded the plat did not own all of the real property included in the plat and that awarded the plaintiffs an easement across a parcel of land owned by the cross-appellants. Upon review of the records, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment except as to the width of the easement. View "Siegwarth v. Opportunity Management Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Utah resident Elham Neilsen wanted to purchase a residence close to the city of Tyler in Smith County, Texas. He contacted Plaintiff-Appellant Holli Telford because he had heard that she knew how to acquire properties through tax or other distress sales and had contacts for obtaining financing for prospective buyers. Mr. Neilsen entered into an agreement with Plaintiff that she would bid on the property and sell it to him after she had obtained the warranty deed. Plaintiff submitted a bid, but did not obtain title to the property because, according to her, it was wrongfully redeemed by the prior owners after she had spent money improving it. She sought specific performance of the alleged contract with Smith County, Texas, or damages for breach of the alleged contract. Defendants moved to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice as to them and without prejudice as to the other defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, but vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded the for entry of a judgment dismissing the complaint without prejudice. View "Telford v. Smith County" on Justia Law

Appellant Intermountain Real Properties, LLC, appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment to Respondent Draw, LLC. Intermountain initially brought a cause of action, as an assignee of a materialmen's lien, against Draw and other defendants to recover payment on work paving a private drive a property development project. The district court granted summary judgment to Draw on the grounds that Intermountain failed to raise a material issue of fact as to Draw's liability on the contract. Specifically, the district court found that Intermountain's lien as it applied to Draw's property was void, and that Draw should have quiet title to its property. Finding no error or abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Intermountain Real Properties, LLC v. Draw, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1997, Plaintiff-Respondent Donald Steuerer needed money and asked his across-the-street neighbor N.E.M. Richards to loan him some. Richards agreed to loan Steuerer $5,000. Steuerer executed and recorded a warranty deed conveying a half interest in his property. Richards paid additional funds Steuerer's benefit, and Steuerer contemporaneously executed a quitclaim deed to the property in favor of Richards. The parties later disputed: (1) how much Richards had paid to or for the benefit of Steuerer and (2) whether the deeds were intended as absolute conveyances or mortgages to secure repayment of the loans. Steuerer filed suit against Richards seeking to quiet title to the property. The district court found: (1) the deeds executed by Steuerer to the Property were intended by the parties to be mortgages to secure loans made by Richards to Steuerer; (2) Steuerer owed Richards $9,285.11 plus prejudgment interest; and (3) upon payment of the monetary award, Richards had to re-convey the property to Steuerer. Richards appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the district court's judgment was not "sustained by the facts found." Finding no error in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Steuerer v. Richards" on Justia Law

In this case, Thomas and Mary Ulrich sought to quiet title to an easement over the "Peacock Parcel," which is adjacent to land that they own. The Peacock Parcel is owned by four parties. The Ulrichs brought suit against “all parties claiming to hold title” to the Peacock Parcel, but served only one of the owners, John Bach. The district court quieted title to the easement in the Ulrichs, declared the Ulrichs’ easement to be superior to any right claimed by Bach, and enjoined Bach from interfering with their use of the easement. Bach appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court affirmed that portion of the district court’s judgment granting an injunction against Bach, but vacated the portion of the judgment quieting title to the property. View "Ulrich v. Bach" on Justia Law

At the heart of this appeal was a mechanic's lien filed against the Black Rock North Development in Coeur d?Alene, Idaho, and an uncompleted golf course community development. American Bank (the Bank) was the lender to BRN Development, Inc. (BRN). BRN hired Wadsworth Golf Construction Company of the Southwest (Wadsworth) to construct a golf course. BRN failed to pay Wadsworth for a portion of the work it performed, and Wadsworth filed a mechanic's lien against the property. BRN defaulted on the loan, and the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. Wadsworth's claim of lien was subordinate to the Bank's mortgage interest in the property. In order to proceed with a foreclosure sale, the Bank posted a lien release bond in order to secure the district court's order releasing Wadsworth's lien. The Bank was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale. The district court ruled that priority of the parties? claims against the property was irrelevant once the property was replaced by the lien release bond as security for Wadsworth's claim and the Bank (by way of the bond) was responsible for payment of Wadsworth's lien claim. The Bank appeals that decision, arguing that Wadsworth should have been prevented from recovering against the lien release bond because its interest would have been extinguished if it had attempted to foreclose its mechanic's lien and the bond merely served as substitute security in place of the property. Wadsworth cross-appealed, arguing the district court erred in holding that Wadsworth waived its right to file a lien for the unpaid retainage on the contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the district court allowing Wadsworth to recover against the lien release bond and vacated the district court's judgment in favor of Wadsworth. View "Americn Bank v. Wadsworth Golf" on Justia Law

This was the third appeal pursued by Byron Thomason (deceased) and his wife Marilynn Thomason (Thomasons) against the brothers Terrence and John Bagley (the Bagleys) over a quiet title action. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order quieting title to real property in the Bagleys and awarding them attorney fees. In the second appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision granting the Bagleys certain shares of water previously held by the Thomasons. Subsequent to the filing of the notices of appeal, the Bagleys were awarded attorney fees and obtained a writ of execution to satisfy the judgment for attorney fees. Pursuant to the writ of execution, the sheriff seized some of the Thomasons? personal property to satisfy the judgment. The Thomasons? requests for exemption and emergency stay were denied. After this Court's opinion in "Bagley I" was released, the Bagleys moved for and were granted judgment on the pleadings. The Thomasons appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Bagley v. Thomason" on Justia Law

This case centered on a judicial foreclosure action brought by Karl L. Roesch and River Terrace Estates, Inc. against Daniel L. Klemann, Cornerstone Financial, Inc., and Shea Realtors, PLLC. Roesch obtained a foreclosure judgment and decree of sale against Klemann in the amount of $307,800.62. The judgment also provided that interest would accrue on the indebtedness through the date of the sheriff's sale. When the district court later learned that the rate used to calculate the interest was the rate set forth in the note, it ordered counsel to prepare another judgment calculating the interest based upon the statutory post-judgment rate defined in the Idaho Code. Roesch appealed the amended judgment, arguing that he was entitled to interest at the note rate through the date of the sale. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment. View "Roesch v. Klemann" on Justia Law

The underlying dispute in this matter centered on the sale and demolition of a bridge across the Ohio River between West Virginia and Ohio. Advanced Explosives Demolition, Inc. (AED) entered a contract to sell the bridge to KDC Investments, LLC (KDC) for $25,000. AED alleged that it also entered into another contract in which KDC hired it to perform explosive demolition work prior to removal of the bridge. After the bridge sale was complete, KDC terminated its relationship with AED and hired another demolition contractor. AED brought an action for fraud and breach of contract against KDC and asked the district court to rescind the sales contract. The district court denied the request for rescission and granted summary judgment in favor of KDC on the fraud and breach of contract claims, holding that AED had provided no evidence of fraud and concluding that the demolition contract was illegal because AED did not have the necessary West Virginia contractor's license when it entered into the contract. AED appealed the district court's denial of its request. The Supreme Court held that AED waived the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in striking certain affidavits presented at trial. However, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of KDC and the district court's order quieting title to a Toll Bridge in KDC. View "AED, Inc v. KDC Investments" on Justia Law

Appellants Richard Hehr and Greystone Villages, LLC (collectively "Greystone") appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent City of McCall. Greystone's claims arose out of its development agreement with McCall. Greystone alleged it deeded nine lots to McCall in lieu of paying the required community housing fee, which was later declared unconstitutional in a separate proceeding. Greystone brought inverse condemnation claims against McCall alleging that the conveyance of the lots and the improvements made to those lots constituted an illegal taking under both the Idaho Constitution and the United States Constitution. McCall moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Finding no error in the district court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Hehr v. City of McCall" on Justia Law