Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kurt Aikele worked as a firefighter for the City of Blackfoot for twenty-six years. In December 2008, Aikele was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the lung, which caused his death four years later. Before his death, Aikele filed a workers’ compensation claim (later amended to include death benefits), arguing that as a lifelong non-smoker with no known genetic predisposition for lung cancer, his disease was likely caused by on-the-job exposure to carcinogens. The Estate appealed when his claim was denied, and when the Idaho Industrial Commission affirmed. The IC determined Aikele was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits because he failed to prove that his occupation caused him to develop lung cancer. Finding no reversible error with that decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Commission’s order. View "Estate of Kurt Aikele v. City of Blackfoot" on Justia Law

The issues in this appeal related to a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) and judgment of divorce that were both signed in April 2012. This dispute was initiated in the magistrate division of the district court in October of 2013, when Sondra Kantor filed a motion to incorporate the parties’ PSA into the parties’ judgment of divorce. Rejecting Robert Kantor’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction to merge the PSA and judgment of divorce, the magistrate court entered a supplemental decree of divorce that incorporated the terms of the parties’ PSA. Sondra then initiated contempt proceedings against Robert. After Robert unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the contempt charges for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the parties reached a stipulated resolution of the contempt proceedings which resulted in a judgment that Robert was in contempt. The stipulation permitted Robert to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. Robert appealed and the district court affirmed the judgment of contempt. The Supreme Court reversed. "The district court’s decision is less understandable. Although the original decree of divorce explicitly stated that the PSA was a 'separate agreement,' the district court inexplicably found this provision to be 'inherently ambiguous as to the question of merger.' The district court did not identify the source of this 'inherent' ambiguity, and we can find nothing in the judgment that renders it ambiguous as to whether the PSA was merged." The Court concluded the Supplemental Decree was void because the magistrate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to merge the PSA into its earlier judgment. Therefore, the district court erred by affirming the magistrate court’s order denying Robert’s motion to dismiss. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the district court and remand with instructions to vacate the magistrate court’s contempt judgment. View "Kantor v. Kantor" on Justia Law

This was an appeal of the district court’s dismissal of Sondra Kantor's claim that Robert Kantor breached a Property Settlement Agreement (PSA) as a sanction, its grant of summary judgment against her, and its award of attorney fees to Robert. This case initially related to the parties’ efforts to sell the community residence which was the subject of Section 5 of the PSA (the property). In late September of 2012, the parties contracted to sell the property in a short sale for $2.4 million in a cash transaction scheduled to close within 30 days, contingent upon Bank of America’s approval of the short sale. The parties were asked to sign a document that extended the period for the contingency to be satisfied to October 5, 2012. Sondra evidently perceived this as an opportunity to apply leverage to secure Robert’s compliance with other terms of the PSA, and she sent him an email indicating that she would not extend the contingency until a number of demands were satisfied. In March, Robert moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaration that Sondra had breached the PSA by failing to timely sign the extension document and dismissal of Sondra’s counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud. Robert’s motion was heard on June 24, 2013. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Sondra’s breach of contract (Count I) and fraud (Count III) counterclaims and held that Sondra was obligated to sign the short sale extension document. Robert had argued that the attorney fees he had incurred were damages resulting from Sondra’s failure to sign the short sale extension. This action then morphed into a dispute over Robert’s efforts to obtain a loan modification from Bank of America. Months later, Robert moved that Sondra be declared in contempt for her actions frustrating his ability to secure the modification. The district court recognized that it had issued an order of "dubious legality" that could not be enforced by way of contempt, yet insisted that if it were not honored the district court would sanction Sondra without notice or an opportunity to be heard. Appeals of the various district court orders followed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. First, the Court determined the district court erred by re-writing the parties' agreements when it required Sondra to convey her interest in the property to Robert. Furthermore, the Court concluded the district court abused its discretion by dismissing Sondra's case as a sanction. Sondra did not show the district court erred in its grant of summary judgment. The Supreme Court did not reach either party's arguments regarding attorney fees. On remand, a new judge was assigned to preside over further proceedings, and no costs or fees were awarded. View "Kantor v. Kantor" on Justia Law

Kenneth and Sally Eyer and Idaho Forest Group, LLC (IFG) entered into a Log Purchase Agreement in which IFG agreed to purchase timber harvested from the Eyers’ land. Before logging, IFG sent an agent to the Eyers’ property to assist them in locating property lines. When the logging occurred, the loggers mistakenly cut timber located on neighboring land. The neighbors sued the Eyers for timber trespass and the Eyers brought a third-party action against IFG for breach of an assumed duty to properly mark the property lines. A jury found in favor of IFG, finding that IFG had not assumed a duty to the Eyers. The district court then awarded IFG $95,608 in attorney fees. On appeal, the Eyers argued the district court erred in awarding fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3), contending: (1) the gravamen of the Eyers’ complaint was not a commercial transaction; and (2) the Eyers did not sell timber for a “commercial purpose” since they used the proceeds of the sale to pay medical bills. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Eyer v. Idaho Forest Group" on Justia Law

Jane Doe I (Mother) and John Doe I (Father) each appealed the magistrate court’s judgment terminating their parental rights as to their two minor children, L.W. and J.W. Mother argued the magistrate court erred in several respects, including that it wrongfully terminated her parental rights because the State’s petition for termination was not filed in accordance with Idaho law and because the children had not been in Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) custody for a mandatory period of fifteen months before the petition was filed. Mother also argued that the magistrate erred in finding that the children were neglected; that it was in the Mother’s best interests to have her parental rights terminated; and that Mother was unable to discharge her parental responsibilities. Father incorporated Mother’s arguments on appeal into his own appeal, and added that the court erred in determining that Father was unable to discharge his parental responsibilities. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Jane Doe / John Doe" on Justia Law

Northern Title Company of Idaho, Inc. (Northern Title) appealed the award of pre-appeal damages and attorney fees in favor of Steven Cummings (as the prevailing party). The Supreme Court reversed the underlying judgment. Northern Title then brought an I.R.C.P. 60(b) motion to vacate the judgments for damages and attorney fees that the district court had entered against it before the appeal. Cummings objected, arguing that Northern Title’s Rule 60(b) motion was untimely and without good cause. The district court disagreed and granted Northern Title’s motion. Cummings timely appealed. But finding no reversible error in granting Northern Title's motion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Cummings v. No Title Co of Idaho" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Supreme Court's review stems from a quiet title action filed by Appellants Andrew and Kimberly Kirk against Ann Wescott. The Kirks bought a plot of land in Blaine County, referred to as Lot 7 of Block 1 of the Glassford Heights Subdivision (“Lot 7”). After purchasing Lot 7, the Kirks found out that Lot 8 of the subdivision had been granted an easement of access across the southeast corner of Lot 7. Wescott owned Lot 8. In 2012, the Kirks brought this action to quiet title, asking the court to terminate the easement encumbering their property. Both parties moved for summary judgment, asking the court to interpret the deed granting the easement. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Wescott, concluding that the easement was created and none of the events that would trigger its termination had occurred. The Kirks then filed two motions to amend the complaint, both of which the district court denied. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed the Kirks’ action for quiet title. Wescott sought an award of attorney fees, which the district court also denied. On appeal, the Kirks challenged the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Wescott and the court’s denial of their motions to amend the complaint. Wescott cross-appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of her motion for attorney fees. Wescott also sought an award of attorney fees on appeal. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in its interpretation of the easement on summary judgment. The district court judgment in favor of Wescott was reversed and the case remanded to the district court to enter judgment in favor of the Kirks. Costs were awarded to the Kirks on appeal. View "Kirk v. Wescott" on Justia Law

Stafford and Woodruff Smith (Woody) were brothers. Their father established Smith Chevrolet, and over the years the brothers have co-owned several auto dealerships, other businesses, and parcels of real property. The brothers each owned 50% of Staffwood, an entity that owned properties and other assets. In 2010, a dispute arose between the brothers involving their business dealings, and in 2010, the brothers entered into a settlement agreement (the 2010 Agreement) that gave ownership of Smith Chevrolet to Stafford. The 2010 Agreement also identified four parcels of land that either brother could purchase through a bid process. Between 2010 and 2012, various transactions occurred between Smith Chevrolet, Woody, Stafford, and Staffwood which culminated in another dispute between the brothers and another settlement agreement (the 2012 Agreement). The 2012 Agreement provided that each brother had the right to initiate a bid process to purchase the properties owned by Staffwood. In 2013, Woody sent a letter to the management of Staffwood in which he asserted that he had won the bidding process and asked Stafford to clear the title to the Smith Chevrolet Property. Woody appealed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings and award of attorney fees to Stafford in his subsequent suit seeking specific performance of his winning bid. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Smith v. Smith" on Justia Law

In 2011, Medical Recovery Services, LLC (“the Collection Agency”), filed this action against defendants Allison and Nathan Olsen to recover on two entities’ unpaid medical bills. In 2012, the parties stipulated that the Collection Agency could recover a judgment against defendants and that it would forbear executing on the judgment if the defendants paid $100 per month between the 25th and 30th of each month until the judgment was paid. The court entered a judgment providing that the Collection Agency could recover from the Defendants the sum of $4,973.46. Defendants failed to make any payment on the judgment, and the Collection Agency attempted to execute on the judgment. The Collection Agency sought to execute on defendants’ bank account, but the account had been closed. The Collection Agency then sought a continuing garnishment to obtain Mr. Olsen’s disposable earnings from Petersen, Moss, Hall & Olsen, but that garnishment was returned unsatisfied because “Defendant is a partner in the firm, not an employee.” The Collection Agency also sought to execute on Mr. Olsen’s partnership interest, but the writ was returned unsatisfied because Mr. Olsen’s equity in the partnership was stated to be zero. The Collection Agency then sought to depose Stephen Hall, the partner in the law firm who had signed the responses to the writs of garnishment. The Collection Agency agreed to forgo taking his deposition if Hall would make $250 bi-monthly payments until the judgment was paid in full. Hall made those payments, but the Collection Agency would not accept final payment endorsed "payment in full" because it wanted to seek post-judgment attorney fees. Defendants filed a motion seeking to compel the Collection Agency to record a satisfaction of judgment in every county in which it had recorded the original judgment. The Agency responded by filing for an award of post-judgment fees it incurred trying to collect on its judgment. The Agency's motion was denied, and the Agency estopped from further collection of fees, citing the agreement reached in satisfying the judgment. The district court upheld the magistrate court's judgment. Finding that Hall only agreed to satisfy the judgment, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in affirming the magistrate. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Medical Recovery Svcs. v. Olsen" on Justia Law

Donna Simono attended a meeting hosted by Treasure Valley Area of Narcotics Anonymous (“TVNA”) at the Turner House in Mountain Home. When leaving the meeting, she fell down the stairs and injured her ankles. Simono brought a negligence action against Turner House, Larry Rodgers, and Cheryl Baker (collectively “Turner House”). Turner House filed a third-party complaint against TVNA, alleging that TVNA was responsible for maintaining the area where Simono fell. Turner House also sought indemnification for Simono’s claims. The jury returned a verdict finding neither Turner House nor TVNA negligent, and the district court entered judgment dismissing Simono’s complaint and Turner House’s third-party complaint. TVNA filed a motion seeking attorney fees against Turner House under Idaho Code section 12-120(3). The district court denied the motion for fees, concluding that the lawsuit was not based on a commercial transaction. TVNA appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for fees. Both TVNA and Turner House sought attorney fees on appeal. Finding that the district court erred in concluding that TVNA was not entitled to attorney fees, the Supreme Court reversed. Fees and costs on appeal were awarded to TVNA. View "Turner House v. Treasure Valley Area of Narcotics Anonymous" on Justia Law