Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on a district court's judgment to condemn an easement across the appellants' real property for an irrigation pipeline. The Supreme Court found no error in the district court's holding that there was a reasonable necessity required for condemnation of the easement in question. The Court vacated a portion of the judgment as it pertained to Defendants-Appellants Donald and Carolyn Cain's counterclaim and the award of a perpetual easement across their property, but the Court affirmed in all other respects. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Telford Lands v. Cain" on Justia Law

Albar, Inc. owned a convenience store, gas station and marina on the Pen Orielle River. In 2003, one of its three underground storage tanks leaked gasoline into the surrounding soil. The tanks were insured through the State's Petroleum Storage Tank Fund. Albar ultimately entered into a consent agreement with the State Department of Environmental Quality to remediate the property and any impacted adjacent properties. In 2005, Albar put the businesses up for sale. Albar made a disclosure regarding the 2003 leak, but that statement would later be found false. JLZ Enterprises was interested in purchasing the property, and relied on the false disclosure. In 2007, JLZ Enterprises sued Albar to recover damages for fraud and breach of contract; to rescind the contract; and to recover damages for negligence against the real estate agent and the broker. The matter was tried to the district court. After hearing the evidence, the court declined to rescind the real estate contract, but found that Albar had breached the contract. The court entered a judgment forclosing the deed of trust on the property and ordering its sale. Albar appealed the grant of JLZ's motion to disallow its costs and attorney fees. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the district court's decision finding Albar breached the contract was supported by substantial and competent evidence, and that it was not an error for the court to disallow Albar's costs and fees. View "Echo Vanderwal v. Albar" on Justia Law

The Bank of Commerce filed suit to foreclose on two mortgages against properties under development by Jefferson Enterprises, LLC. Jefferson raised a variety of counterclaims. Ultimately the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank, ordering the foreclosures. Jefferson raised numerous issues on appeal, but finding no error or abuse of the district court's discretion, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Bank of Commerce v. Jefferson Ent" on Justia Law

Richard and Lisa Keane and the companies they managed, and Bald, Fat & Ugly, LLC (BFU) had a disagreement arising from a development deal involving the Houston Professional Plaza. They went to mediation, but the parties had a disagreement regarding the terms of the mediated agreement. They then turned to arbitration. The arbitrator granted two awards in favor of BFU. The award did not specify any date by which the Keanes were to pay the money, nor did the award include interest. The district court confirmed the arbitration awards, and issued a writ of execution. The sheriff returned the writ not satisfied. BFU then obtained an order for a debtor's examination. A partial satisfaction of judgment was made, but the Keanes did not direct how the payment made was to be applied to the two arbitration awards. BFU applied the partial satisfaction to one of the awards, and filed a motion to have the Keanes held in contempt for failing to pay the second. The Keanes challenged the contempt action. The Supreme Court, after its review of the matter, found that because the order confirming the arbitration award did not require the Keanes to do anything and because contempt cannot be used to enforce payment of the debt in this case, the Court reversed the judgment of the district court finding them in contempt and the order later entered awarding the respondent attorney fees and court costs. View "Bald, Fat & Ugly v. Keane" on Justia Law

Appellants Tommy and Erin Dorsey contended that they were conveyed beachfront property when they bought "Lot 1." Respondents, who own the other lots in the subdivision, contended that the property was dedicated to the use and benefit of the entire subdivision. The district court agreed with Respondents. Plaintiffs appealed. But after a review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. View "Ross v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Advanced Medical Diagnostics entered into a contract for services with Defendant Imaging Center of Idaho, LLC. Defendant stopped making payments and Plaintiff sued for damages for breach of contract. The matter was tried to a jury and the jury returned a special verdict finding that Plaintiff had proved its claim but was not entitled to damages because Defendant proved its affirmative defense. The trial court determined that Defendant was the prevailing party, and was awarded costs and attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed that award to the Supreme Court. After its review, the Supreme Court found no error in the trial court's decision and affirmed. View "Adv Medical Diagnostics v. Imaging Center of Idaho" on Justia Law

Appellant Alpine Village appealed a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of McCall. Alpine sued the City to enforce Ordinance 819 (found to be unconstitutional in a separate proceeding), and argued that the City unlawfully took its property in violation of the federal and state constitutions. Finding that the district court did not err in its finding that Alpine's state law claims were barred for failing to bring them according to the notice requirements of the Idaho Tort Claims Act, and that the federal claims were not ripe for adjudication, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Alpine Village v. City of McCall" on Justia Law

Alva Garrett owned an 80-acre parcel of property in Middleton. He sold most of the property to pay off debt. Alva owned the property in his name, but in 1990, executed a quitclaim deed to himself and his wife Thelma. In 2006, Alva executed a second quitclaim deed to his son, Plaintiff Jack Garrett. Alva gave the 2006 deed to Jack's brother John with instructions not to record it until Alva died. Alva died in 2008, and the deed was recorded. Jack then sued his stepmother Thelma to partition the property. After a bench trial, the court ruled that the 1990 deed re-characterized the property from separate to community property, invalidating the 2006 deed. Jack appealed, but the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's conclusion. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Garrett v. Garrett" on Justia Law

The parties in this case appealed a magistrate court judgment concerning the division of certain property pursuant to a divorce decree. Appellant, Bill Clark raised three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in affirming the different methods of valuation the magistrate court used in valuing and distributing Appellee Amy Baruch's 401(k) and the "Schwab 3713" account; (2) whether the court properly characterized the "Veltex" distribution as income presumptively belonging to the community; and (3) whether Amy was entitled to attorney fees on appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) the district court did not err in affirming the different methods the magistrate court used to value and divide Amy's 401(k) and the Schwab 3713 account; (2) the Veltex distribution was properly classified as income and therefore community property; and (2) Amy was not entitled to attorney fees because this appeal was not brought or pursued frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation. View "Baruch v. Clark" on Justia Law

Katherine Harris sought workers' compensation benefits after falling and injuring herself at work in January of 2008. Following a hearing, the Idaho Industrial Commission decided that Harris was not entitled to disability or medical benefits after February 19, 2008. Harris appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review of the Commission record, the Supreme Court concluded that the Commission did not err in its conclusion that Harris was only entitled to benefits provided up to February 19, 2008. View "Harris v. Ind School Dist No 1" on Justia Law