Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal stemmed from a 1983 Ground Lease of over four acres of property in Pocatello which Quail Ridge Medical Investors, LLC leased from Pocatello Hospital, LLC (d/b/a/ Portneuf Medical Centers, LLC (PMC)). Quail Ridge appealed a declaratory judgment which held that PMC was entitled to an adjustment in the annual rent owed by Quail Ridge from $9,562.50 annually to $148,500 annually, and that Quail Ridge was obligated to pay PMC $416,812.50 in rent for the period of 2010 to 2012. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pocatello Hospital v. Quail Ridge Medical Investor" on Justia Law

Appellant Billy J. Bringman appealed an Idaho Industrial Commission decision in favor of Respondents New Albertsons, Inc. and the Idaho Department of Labor. The Commission determined Bringman willfully made a false statement or failed to report a material fact regarding his separation from Albertsons to obtain unemployment benefits from the Department and ordered Bringman to repay the benefits he received and pay a civil penalty. Finding no reversible error with that decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bringman v. New Albertsons, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) court decision on whether Idaho law required a remark authorizing storage rights to "refill,"under priority, space vacated for flood control. The SRBA court concluded that a remark was not necessary because a storage water right that is filled cannot refill under priority before affected junior appropriators satisfy their water rights once. The court declined to address when the quantity element of a storage water right is considered filled. Seven Magic Valley irrigation districts and canal companies (collectively the "Surface Water Coalition") appealed this decision in Docket No. 40974. The Boise Project Board appealed this decision in Docket No. 40975. Because both cases appealed the same decision of the SRBA court and had significant overlap, the Supreme Court addressed them together in this opinion, and held that the SRBA court abused its discretion in designating the question of whether Idaho law required remark as Basin-Wide Issue 17. The SRBA court did not abuse its discretion by declining to address when the quantity element of a storage water right is considered filled or in stating that such a determination was within the Director's discretion. View "In re: SRBA" on Justia Law

The district court awarded attorneys fees to Lynn Urrutia against appellants Ty Harrison and Robert Schutte under Idaho Code section 12-120(3), 12-121, and 12-123, as well as sanctions against the appellants' attorney under Idaho Code section 12-123 and I.R.C.P. 11. These awards stemmed from the divorce of Lynn and Johnny Urrutia in 2007 and the divorce decree's division of the marital property. "'The most egregious conduct of defendants,' in the district court's opinion, was the filing of the Third Amended Counterclaim, which 'states two causes of action against Lynn: (1) that the second lien has priority over Lynn's claims and (2) that Lynn as the owner of the property was unjustly enriched.' The judge noted that the Second Lien, with a priority date of 2008, could not conceivably be higher in priority than Lynn's deed of trust, which was recorded in 2007. He observed that the Appellants knew the $220,000 claimed in the Second Lien, like the First Lien, contained numerous items that did not constitute improvements to the arena property and were not lienable under the mechanic's lien statutes. And, even though the Appellants knew that the owner of record of the arena property was Sundance Arena, LLC, they sought personal recovery against Lynn under an unjust enrichment theory for improvements made to the property, which she did not own." Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the award of fees and sanctions to Lynn Urrutia. View "Urrutia v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Pro se claimant Chance LeBow appealed an Industrial Commission's holding that he quit his job with Right Now, Inc. without good cause and that he willfully failed to report material facts for the purpose of collecting unemployment benefits. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Lebow v. Commercial Tire" on Justia Law

Richard Giesler and Idaho Trust Deeds, LLC appealed a district court's judgment declaring the rights and obligations on a contract. This case arose out of several oral and written agreements between Giesler and Gregory Hull that related to purchasing and subdividing property. After a bench trial, the court found that Hull sold the property to Giesler, but the parties had a later oral contract where Hull promised to pay off Giesler's loans in exchange for half of the subdivision's net profits. The court held that neither party materially breached the contract and ordered Hull to timely pay Giesler's loans and Giesler to complete the subdivision within certain deadlines. On appeal, Giesler argued Hull failed to prove damages and the district court's remedies were erroneous. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court found that substantial and competent evidence supported the district court's findings of fact, but that the district court erred in its remedies. The Court vacated the portions of the district court's decision regarding: (1) the conversion payment of half the irrigation equipment's value; (2) the deadlines for completing Parcels 2 and 3; and (3) the provisions that order consequences to encourage performance under the contract. View "Hull v. Giesler" on Justia Law

The magistrate court dismissed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the biological father of two children and to permit the children's stepfather to adopt them. The magistrate court dismissed the action on the ground that the petitioners had failed to prove that termination of the father's parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Termination of Parental Rights (Father)" on Justia Law

Gary Corgatelli sought worker's compensation benefits from his employer Steel West and the State of Idaho's Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) for a 2005 back injury that he incurred as a result of his employment. The Idaho Industrial Commission concluded that Corgatelli had a permanent physical impairment of 15% of the whole person, attributing 5% to an earlier injury in 1994 and 10% to the 2005 injury, and that Corgatelli was totally and permanently disabled. The Commission further concluded that ISIF was liable for disability benefits because the effects of Corgatelli's preexisting impairment from the 1994 injury combined with his 2005 injury to cause total and permanent disability. The Commission subsequently issued an order to clarify that Steel West was entitled to credit on the disability award for permanent physical impairment benefits Steel West previously paid to Corgatelli for his 2005 injury. Corgatelli appealed the Commission's order to credit Steel West. ISIF cross-appealed the Commission's determination of ISIF liability. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the Commission erred when it allowed Steel West to offset its liability for total and permanent disability benefits with permanent physical impairment benefits previously paid to Corgatelli. Furthermore, the Court found no substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding that ISIF was liable to Corgatelli for benefit payment. The Commission's award to Steel West of a credit for permanent physical impairment benefits previously paid to Corgatelli in 2006 and 2007 for his 2005 back injury was vacated. The Commission's finding of ISIF liability was reversed. And this case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Corgatelli v. Steel West, Inc." on Justia Law

This case was a permissive appeal of an order denying the appellants' motions for summary judgment. The central issue was whether an attorney who, as counsel for a corporation, issued an opinion letter stating that a stock redemption agreement did not violate the law, could be held liable to the shareholder whose stock was redeemed if the opinion was incorrect and the redemption agreement was later declared void as violating state law. The Supreme Court held that the claim against appellant Richard Riley was barred by res judicata and that there could be a claim against the remaining appellants where the opinion letter was addressed to respondent and stated that he could rely upon it. View "Taylor v. Riley" on Justia Law

Melvin Peterson died in 2007. Prior to his death, he owned some residential real property. In 2001, Peterson executed a Gift Deed of his real property to his daughter, Cathie Peterson, retaining for himself a life estate in the property. Shortly thereafter, he applied for Medicaid and began receiving Medicaid benefits in March 2003. At the time of his death, Melvin Peterson had received a total of $171,386.94 in Medicaid benefits. Cathie was appointed personal representative. IDHW filed a timely Claim Against Estate and later an Amended Claim Against Estate in the amount of $171,386.94. Cathie disallowed the claims without stating a reason. In response, IDHW filed a Petition for Allowance of Amended Claim. After a hearing, the court granted IDHW's petition. After receiving no response to its claim against the estate, IDHW filed a Petition to Require Payment of Claim, setting forth its demand for payment of the value of Melvin Peterson's life estate. After a hearing, the magistrate court entered an order requiring payment of IDHW's claim. The Order held that the life estate was an asset of the estate for purposes of Medicaid recovery and ordered the personal representative to add the life estate interest to the estate's inventory and assign it an appropriate value. However, the personal representative instead filed and was granted a motion to hire an appraiser to determine the fee simple value of the residential real property. After the personal representative failed to file an appraisal, IDHW filed various motions relative to the appraisal, sale of the property, and payment of its claim. The magistrate court granted IDHW's motions to compel appraisal, sale of the property, and payment of the Medicaid claim, which the personal representative subsequently appealed. The district court vacated the magistrate's Order and remanded the matter for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shortly after the ruling on appeal was entered, Cathie Peterson sought permission from the magistrate court to sell the property, liquidate an escrow account, and pay counsel for the personal representative of the estate. On the same day, she also filed an Amended Personal Representative's Inventory assigning the life estate zero value. Attorney Brent Featherston filed a Demand for Notice and Special Appearance on behalf of "Cathie Peterson, individually,"stating that he was seeking to vacate and dismiss all orders entered by the magistrate court regarding her real property. IDHW responded by filing a petition to remove Cathie Peterson as personal representative of the estate, which the magistrate court granted. Following a court trial, the magistrate court held that the life estate remainder interest was an estate asset of value for purposes of Medicaid reimbursement and that its value was to be determined in accordance with IDAPA 16.03.05.837.01. On appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate court. Cathie Peterson appealed. The Supreme Court found that both the magistrate court and the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this case and personal jurisdiction over Cathie Peterson individually, and that the entire residential property that Cathie Peterson received from her father was an asset of his estate and subject to Medicaid recovery. Thus, the district court erred to the extent it held that only the remainder interest in the estate was subject to Medicaid recovery. Furthermore, the Court held that Cathie Peterson failed to show that the district court's decision denying her claim for offsets was unsupported by the evidence. View "Dept. of Health & Welfare v. Peterson" on Justia Law