Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner-Appellant Michael Maclay appealed the district court's decision affirming the Idaho Real Estate Commission's Final Order, which revoked his real estate license and assessed him a $5,000 fine. Petitioner allegedly used another person's broker's license to carry on Help-U-Sell List 4 Less Realty, prepared incomplete brokerage representation agreements without either a price provision or a conspicuous beginning and end date, advertised listed properties without a listing broker's licensed business name, used a new brokerage name prior to its approval by the Commission, provided misleading advertising to the public, accepted real estate fees not paid through a broker for the performance of acts requiring a real estate license, engaged in a continued or flagrant course of misrepresentation, failed to account for or remit any funds coming in his possession belonging to a brokerage, engaged in dishonorable dealings and recklessness or gross negligence, and acted as a real estate salesperson without a license. Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him, and that the Commission's decision exceeded its authority. Because the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and the other issues were waived, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision. View "Maclay v. Idaho Real Estate Comm'n" 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

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

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

Defendant-Appellant Torey Adamcik appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Defendant raised several issues on appeal pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at trial, and procedural errors that prejudicially lead to his conviction. Taking each of Defendant's issues raised on appeal, and after a review of the trial record and applicable law, the Supreme Court found that the jury was presented with sufficient evidence from which it could reasonably find that Defendant was guilty of first-degree murder, and that the trial court committed no fundamental errors that adversely impacted Defendant's trial. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. View "Idaho v. Adamcik " 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

In 2006, Appellant V. J. Magee sustained a work-related injury causing harm to his lumbar spine and impacting the use of his right leg, leaving him in chronic pain. The Idaho Industrial Commission found that Appellant suffered a compensable industrial accident, that he sustained a ten percent permanent partial impairment to the whole body, and sustained a twenty percent permanent partial disability to the whole body. Magee appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Commission's 2004 decision. While that appeal was still pending, Appellant filed a second complaint with the Commission, arguing that the Commission's 2004 decision should be modified because of a change in his condition. The Commission held a second hearing, additional evidence was presented, and the Commission issued a final decision, concluding that Appellant failed to prove that a change in condition had occurred. The Commission also found that its earlier 2004 decision did not result in manifest injustice and that the benefit claims, which were previously litigated, were barred by res judicata. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Appellant failed to establish a change in condition, that the 2004 decision did not result in manifest injustice, and that the issues regarding his medical benefits were barred under res judicata. View "Magee v. Thompson Creek Mining Co. " on Justia Law

The constitutionality of "Plan L 87," a legislative redistricting plan adopted by the Commission on Redistricting for reapportionment, was challenged and brought before the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Court found that the Plan complied with the strictures of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution. However, the Plan did not comply with Article III, section 5 of the Idaho Constitution in that it did not "divide counties only to the extent that [they] must be divided to comply with the Federal Constitution." Furthermore, the Plan did not "avoid dividing counties whenever possible in violation of Idaho Code section 72-1506(5)." The Court did not order the Commission to adopt any one redistricting plan: "The commission certainly has the discretion to reject plans that have been submitted and draw boundaries in another manner that complies with both Constitutions." The Court directed the commission to reconvene and adopt a revised plan. View "Twin Falls County v. Idaho Commission on Redistricting" on Justia Law

Patricia Shelton filed suit alleging breach of contract a legal malpractice against her former attorneys Defendants-Appellants R. Bruce Owens, Jeffrey Crandall, and Owens and Crandall, PLLC (Owens). During the pendency of her action, Ms. Shelton passed away. Plaintiff-Appellee Lois Bishop sought to assert Ms. Shelton's claims as her personal representative. Owens unsuccessfully argued that the legal malpractice claim abated upon Ms. Shelton's death, and that her breach of contract claim did not state a claim. Owens appealed. Because Patricia Shelton’s legal malpractice claim sounds in tort and abated upon her death, and her breach of contract claim fails to state a claim, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in denying Owens’s motion for summary judgment and in granting Bishop’s motion to substitute as plaintiff. View "Owen v. Bishop" on Justia Law