Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case arose from a district court's dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies of Petitioner-Appellant Daniel Fuchs's petition for judicial review and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. Petitioner challenged the Alcohol Beverage Control's (ABC) removal of his name from liquor license priority waiting lists. He argued that the agency's action constituted an informal rule that was not promulgated in accordance with the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (Idaho APA). In response, ABC argued that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing his action before the district court, and that the removal was done in accordance with Idaho APA. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court erred in finding that Petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but that Petitioner did not have a property interest in his place on the priority list (since the legislature did not have the authority to create such an interest). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Fuchs v. Idaho" on Justia Law

Defendant-Respondent Croft & Reed, Inc. and Plaintiff-Appellant Steel Farms, Inc. had a preexisting landlord-tenant relationship when they entered into a written agreement granting Steel Farms a lease and option (Option A) to purchase a farm in Bonneville County (the Property). The lease had an express four-year term. Steel Farms believed the four-year term was a mistake because the option to purchase the Property did not mature until after the four-year lease term expired. In response to a request from Steel Farms, Croft & Reed’s secretary made a handwritten interlineation on the lease agreement which purported to extend the lease term for an additional year. While Steel Farms was a tenant, it purchased and installed irrigation equipment on the Property, which was attached to the Property’s irrigation system. Steel Farms later granted Walker Land, Inc. an option to purchase the Property (Option B) from Steel Farms. Steel Farms sought to exercise Option A after leasing the Property for four years. Croft & Reed refused. Steel Farms sued, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Croft & Reed. Steel Farms appealed the certified judgment. Upon review, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded, finding that the secretary's initialed interlineation was insufficient to amend the lease and option. View "Steel Farms, Inc. v. Croft & Reed, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants Stanley and Catherine Jensen, as trustees of the Stanley and Catherine Jensen Family Living Trust, appealed the district court's decision that granted Plaintiff-Respondent Rocky Mountain Power's motion for summary judgment. Defendants are record owners of a cattle ranch that lies within a corridor established by the Utility for a 345 kilovolt transmission line. The Utility sought a perpetual easement and a right of way for the Utility and its successors and assigns to locate, construct, reconstruct, operate, and maintain a 150 foot wide high-voltage overhead power line utility corridor through the eastern part of Defendants' property. In 2008, Defendants entered into an Occupancy Agreement with the Utility, waiving all defenses to the Utility's acquisition of the easement, except the claim of just compensation. Upon execution of the Agreement, Defendants were paid $215,630 which would be deducted from any final determination of just compensation for the easement. Under the terms of the Occupancy Agreement, if just compensation was determined to be less than $215,630, Defendants were not required to return the difference. The parties were unable to reach an agreement for just compensation within a specified time, so the Utility filed its Complaint in early 2009, seeking a decree of condemnation, an award of easement, and specific performance of the Occupancy Agreement. The Utility filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Defendants did not identify any expert witnesses or laid a proper foundation for any probative evidence of just compensation. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Defendants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact to establish the fair market value of their property. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Rocky Mountain Power v. Jensen" on Justia Law

In 2008, Plaintiffs Thomas and Julie Manning purchased a property to which an easement was granted by their predecessors-in-interest to their neighbors, Defendants William Campbell and Naomi Campbell. The Mannings wanted to change or eliminate the then-existing driveway that lead to the Campbell property. When the Campbells would not agree to the change, the Mannings filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment holding that a written agreement between the prior owners of both their and the Campbells' property granted a revocable license. If that failed, they asked for a judgment that held they were entitled to relocate the easement. The district court ruled that the agreement granted an easement and not a revocable license. The parties then tried the right of the Mannings to relocate the easement. The Mannings submitted two proposed relocations of the easement, both of which would change where it connected to the Campbell property. A third proposal would leave the driveway where it was, but reduce its width. The court rejected all three proposals, and the Mannings appealed. Because the easement did not specify the location nor dimension of the easement, the Supreme Court found that the "Mannings [did] not point to any evidence in the record indicating that either the width or the location of the easement has changed since the driveway was initially constructed." Therefore, the district court did not err in rejecting all of the Mannings' proposals and leaving the driveway as it existed. View "Manning v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Vernon was a homeowner in default on his home loan. ReconTrust, the holder of Plaintiff's deed of trust, initiated a nonjudicial foreclosure on the deed. Upon receiving notice of the trustee's sale, Plaintiff sued ReconTrust, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., and Bank of New York Mellon. He alleged that none of the defendants had standing to initiate the foreclosure. Bank of New York moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the claims that it complied with the statutory requirements to foreclose, and that standing was not a requirement for nonjudicial foreclosures. The district court granted the motion, and Plaintiff appealed. He argued that before a party may initiate a nonjudicial foreclosure it must affirmatively show it has standing by having an interest to both the deed of trust and the promissory note. Finding that a trustee was not required to prove it had standing before foreclosing on a deed of trust, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint. View "Trotter v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

Burns Holdings, LLC, desired to construct a concrete batch plant in Teton County near the City of Driggs. Burns Holdings applied to the county for a zoning change from C-3 (commercial) to M-1 (light industrial), and the county approved the zoning change on the conditions that Burns Holdings and the county execute a development agreement, that the zoning will revert back to C-3 if the project does not come to fruition, and that Burns Holdings pay the impact area application fee. The city planning and zoning department approved the conditional use permit to increase the height limitation on Burns Holdings’s property to 75 feet. The matter was then sent to the county for its approval. The county scheduled a public hearing. At that hearing, there was confusion as to whether the matter being considered was an appeal from the decision of the city planning and zoning department or a decision for the county to make, and whether the county even had jurisdiction to make the decision because of the terms of an "area of city impact" agreement. The county commissioners ultimately decided that the decision of the city department was merely a recommendation and that the county had the responsibility to decide the CUP application. The CUP was ultimately denied, and Burns Holding appealed. The issue on appeal was the district court's decision that upheld the denial of the conditional use permit. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the zoning requirements could be waived only by variance, not by a conditional use permit. View "Burns Holdings, LLC v. Teton County Board of Commissioners" on Justia Law

n 2007, Plaintiff-Respondent Leslie Benz entered into a contract to purchase a townhouse that was to be constructed. The contract required her to make three nonrefundable payments of earnest money, which were to be applied to the purchase price. The property's seller sought a construction loan from Defendant-Appellant D.L. Evans Bank. As security for the loan, the seller executed a deed of trust granting the Bank a lien in the property upon which the townhouse would be constructed. The townhouse was substantially completed when Plaintiff was notified that the seller had filed for bankruptcy. The seller failed to pay construction expenses, and as a result, the closing did not occur as scheduled. Numerous mechanics' and materialmen's liens were filed against the property. Plaintiff negotiated with the seller in an attempt to clear the title and purchase the townhouse. Negotiations broke down, Plaintiff notified the seller that she was rescinding the contract, and demanded the return of the earnest money she paid. When the earnest money was not refunded, Plaintiff sued. The trial court held that Plaintiff's lien which was created in connection with the rescinded contract had priority over a deed of trust that the Bank had in the property. The Supreme Court reversed part of the trial court's judgment that awarded accrued interest from the earnest money, but affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Plaintiff. View "Benz v. D.L. Evans Bank" on Justia Law

Appellants in this case contended that the district court erred when it determined that an unnamed road in their subdivision was public by common law dedication. Appellants are property owners in Division III of the Sawtelle Mountain Subdivision of Fremont County, Idaho. The Sawtelle Subdivision plat was created and recorded in 1994. Although the C-shaped road does not intrude on any lots in the subdivision, the disputed road straddles two lots, one of which belongs to Appellants Joni Kepler-Fleenor and Kistin Fleenor, and the other of which belongs to Blue Sky Management, LLC. According to Appellants, heavy construction traffic heading into and out of the Stonegate Subdivision was bothersome and was damaging the disputed road. The owners of the road lots installed a berm and a gate to block traffic on the disputed road in 2005, but the County removed it in 2009, believing the disputed road to be public. Because the subdivision plat unambiguously dedicated the road, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling. View "Kepler-Fleenor v. Fremont County " on Justia Law

Greenbriar Estates Homeowner’s Association and developer Asbury Park, LLC asserted conflicting interests in a Greenbriar Estates subdivision lot upon which Asbury Park constructed storage facilities. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Asbury Park. Greenbriar HOA appealed and asserted that the district court erred by rejecting the HOA's common law dedication and fraud claims, as well as by refusing to apply the Restatement (Third) of Property-Servitudes. Upon review of the district court record, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court properly dismissed the HOA's common law dedication claim because Asbury Park did not make a clear and unequivocal offer to dedicate the lot at issue to the HOA. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's decision that granted partial summary judgment to Asbury Park. View "Asbury Park, LLC v. Greenbriar Estate Homeowners’ Association, Inc. " on Justia Law

Appellants Ismael Chavez and Dolores Mercado (collectively Chavez) appealed the district court's granting their petition for judicial review, claiming that their original complaint should not have been converted into a petition for judicial review. Canyon County cross-appealed the district court's decision that the flat fee included on the County's notice of pending issue of tax deed was in violation of I.C. 63-1005(4)(d) requiring an itemized statement. In 2009, Chavez filed a class action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment and damages. Chavez alleged that Canyon County had violated a requirement in Idaho Code section 63-1005(4)(d) for an itemized statement of all costs and fees in its notice prior to an issuance of treasurer's tax deeds on two parcels of land they owned. In its Notice of Pending Issue of Tax Deed on the two parcels, the County charged a $500 flat fee for administration costs. In 2010, upon a motion for summary judgment, the district court denied the motion and found Chavez had failed to follow the proper procedures. The court allowed Chavez fourteen days to file the required Petition for Judicial Review. In its review, the Supreme Court held that the district court improperly converted Chavez's declaratory action into a petition for judicial review and was without jurisdiction to rule on the petition for judicial review. Furthermore, the Court declared the notices of pending issue of tax deed to be deficient and void and the corresponding fee was found as moot. View "Chavez v. Canyon County " on Justia Law