Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Real estate purchasers Thomas and Vicki Stevenson appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment that dismissed their unjust enrichment claim against Windermere Capital Group (Windermere), broker to seller 323 Jefferson, LLC (Jefferson). The Stevensons desired to purchase a condominium from Jefferson, and the parties executed a Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (REPSA) for that purpose. Pursuant to the REPSA, the Stevensons deposited $38,000 earnest money with Jefferson’s broker, Windermere. Upon the Stevensons' written authorization, Windermere transferred the funds to Jefferson. Jefferson then paid Windermere a partial commission pursuant to an Exclusive Seller Representation Agreement which obligated Jefferson to pay Windermere a commission whenever a ready, willing, and able purchaser was procured. Jefferson decided not to sell the condominium to the Stevensons and notified them that it was terminating the REPSA. The REPSA specified remedies upon default by either of the parties to the agreement. In the event that Jefferson failed to comply with any term of the agreement, the Stevensons were entitled to their deposit plus interest. Despite this unambiguous provision, Jefferson failed to return the deposit. The Stevensons filed suit against both Jefferson and Windermere. Their complaint alleged that Jefferson breached the REPSA and also advanced a claim of unjust enrichment against both Jefferson and Windermere. The Stevensons also asserted that the REPSA was unenforceable because it did not contain an adequate legal description. Jefferson settled with the Stevensons, agreeing to refund the Stevensons' earnest money, less the commission paid to Windermere. Windermere answered and cross-claimed against Jefferson, alleging two counts of breach of contract, two counts of unjust enrichment and one count of fraud. Windermere later moved for summary judgment as to the Stevensons’ unjust enrichment claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the district court properly exercised its discretion and affirmed the award of summary judgment to Windmere. View "Stevenson v. Windermere Real Estate" on Justia Law

In April and June of 2008, Best of the Best Auto Sales, Inc. purchased seven vehicles from Dealers Auto Auction of Idaho and Brasher's Idaho Auto Auction with checks that were returned for insufficient funds. As a result, Dealers and Brasher refused to provide Best of the Best with the titles to the vehicles. Best of the Best then sold the vehicles to Idaho consumers without providing them with titles. Dealers and Brasher filed claims with CNA Surety d/b/a Western Surety Company which acted as a surety for a "$20,000 Vehicle/Vessel Dealer Bond." Best of the Best was the principal. Upon Best of the Best's failure to provide evidence or defenses for Dealers' and Brasher's claims, Western Surety alleged that it lawfully settled those claims in good faith upon the condition that the consumers received their titles, even though they were not based on final judgments. Plaintiff Nick Hestead submitted his claim, which was based on a final judgment. Plaintiff's claim involved fraud and fraudulent representation concerning a separate vehicle that he purchased from Best of the Best that was previously branded a lemon in California. Western Surety responded by asserting that the Dealer Bond was exhausted. Plaintiff contended that the plain meaning of I.C. 49-1610(4) provides that his claim should be given priority because it was submitted thirty days after a final judgment was entered, unlike Dealers' and Brasher's claims. Western Surety asserted that the plain meaning of I.C. 41-1839(3) permits sureties to settle Dealer Bond claims in good faith. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the payments on the surety bond were lawfully made in good faith pursuant to I.C. 49-1610(1) and I.C. 41-1839(3) because Dealers' and Brasher's claims were undisputed and supported by competent evidence. View "Hestead v. CNA Supply dba Western Surety Co." on Justia Law

Appellant John Stem was helping to load a forklift at his place of work when another employee backed the forklift over a water meter cover which broke under the weight of the forklift. The forklift toppled and pinned Appellant to the ground, resulting in severe injuries and the amputation of his right leg. He sued Respondent Wesley Prouty, the owner and landlord of the property where the accident occurred, for negligence under a theory of premises liability for failing to keep the premises safe. Appellant alleged that the water meter cover was a light duty cover and was inadequate to support heavy duty vehicles such as forklifts. He later amended his complaint to include a negligence-per-se claim against Respondent for failing to obtain a building permit in violation of city and state codes, which he argued would have likely led to the discovery of the defective water meter cover. The district court granted Respondent's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, dismissing the negligence claim based on premises liability. Respondent filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment on the negligence-per-se claim which was originally denied by the court. Then, upon Motion for Reconsideration, the court granted Respondent summary judgment. Appellant appealed the judgments in favor of Respondent. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no genuine issues of material facts. Accordingly, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent. View "Stem v. Prouty" on Justia Law

Appellants Lynn and Jana Nelson argued that they owned a strip of land even though the county records showed respondents Jebb and Brandie Huskinson to be the owners of record. The Nelsons contended that the disputed land belonged to them because of a "boundary by agreement." The district court granted summary judgment to the Huskinsons. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case, finding that questions of material facts still existed from review of the evidence presented at trial, and that summary judgment was not appropriate. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Huskinson v. Nelson" on Justia Law

This case concerned a commercial lease between Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellants Michael Storms and Kathy Burggraf and the Plaitniff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant Watkins Company, LLC’s predecessor in interest, Watkins and Watkins for a restaurant and microbrewery in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Watkins filed a lawsuit seeking to enforce the lease after Storms and Burggraf failed to timely pay the rent. The issues were tried to the district court, which found that Storms and Burggraf had materially breached the lease and that Watkins could regain possession of the property. The district court also found that Storms and Burggraf had been unjustly enriched by failing to pay rent for additional storage space. Further, the district court found that the lease's provision for accelerated rent was a liquidated damages clause and found it be unconscionable. Storms and Burggraf appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that an accord and satisfaction had been reached between the parties and that the court erred in its finding of the rent for the upstairs storage area above the restaurant. Watkins argued on cross-appeal that the district court based its finding regarding the accelerated rent on insufficient evidence. Because of an error in the district court's finding regarding the upstairs storage area, the Supreme Court vacated that part of the court's order but upheld the remaining issues. View "The Watkins Co. LLC v. Storms" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas Weisel owned two adjacent parcels within the Beaver Springs Subdivision in Ketchum. He sought to unify and develop the lots. At some point, his plan indicated that he intended that construction would take place in a "setback zone" that abutted the lots' shared border. Plaintiff and the Beaver Springs Owners Association executed an agreement whereby Beaver Springs approved the unification and development plan. Construction on the property was completed in 1985, all structures were located on what used to be "lot 14" and the former setback zone and "lot 13" remained vacant. In 2009, Plaintiff filed suit to rescind or reform the agreement. The district court granted Beaver Springs' motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that "[i]n essence, Plaintiff asked the Court to reform an agreement for which the parties freely bargained." As such, the Court found that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Beaver Springs. View "Weisel v. Beaver Springs Owners Association, Inc." on Justia Law

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