505 P.3d 708
Idaho2022Background
- Lands originally conveyed in 1951 and subdivided in 1967 into parcels T-9 (Larson), T-10 (Mullins), T-11 (Byrd) and later T-12 (Chappel/Coffey). Early deeds describe waterward calls “along the shore of Priest Lake” to iron pins; later deeds expressly extend to the mean high water line for some parcels.
- Prior owners of Byrd and Mullins’ parcels used the shore for littoral purposes for decades; a 2016 Department of Lands (Department) permit for a two-family dock was issued without a hearing and the dock was built.
- Coffey claimed a narrow strip of shore exists between the iron pins and the ordinary high water mark; 2018 survey showed roughly 20–34 feet between iron pins and water at points.
- Byrd and Mullins applied in 2018/2019 to add boat lifts; Coffey and Larson objected that Byrd and Mullins lack littoral ownership. After a hearing the Department denied the permit for failure to prove, by a preponderance, that the properties extended to the ordinary high water mark.
- The district court affirmed the Department; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding the Department lacked authority to adjudicate title and properly denied the permit for insufficient proof of littoral rights. Costs awarded; attorney fees denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties may obtain declaratory ownership/littoral-rights relief in administrative encroachment proceedings | Byrd/Mullins: Department’s prior permit and administrative process can resolve littoral ownership and clear title | Dept./Board: Agency lacks authority to adjudicate ownership; quiet title in district court is required | Held: Agency lacks authority to declare ownership; denying permit was proper without quiet title action |
| Whether issuance of the 2016 dock permit collaterally estops later challenges to littoral rights | Byrd/Mullins: 2016 permit necessarily determined littoral rights; collateral estoppel bars relitigation | Coffey/Larson: 2016 permit issued without hearing/minimal procedures and is not a final adjudication | Held: No collateral estoppel; 2016 permit was not a formal adjudication and did not preclude later challenge |
| Whether the Department’s denial was supported by substantial evidence | Byrd/Mullins: Deed language, historical use, and intent support littoral ownership | Dept./Respondents: Deed calls to iron pins and surveys show a strip to the high‑water line; record lacks preponderant proof | Held: Denial affirmed—record lacked sufficient evidence of littoral ownership and Department could not resolve title issues |
| Whether the hearing officer improperly treated meander lines as boundary lines | Byrd/Mullins: Hearing adopted Coffey’s misstatements equating meander lines to boundaries | Respondents: Hearing did not rely on meander-line reasoning; officer avoided boundary determination | Held: No error—officer did not equate meander lines to boundaries or fix the high‑water line |
| Whether attorney fees should be awarded | Respondents: Fees under Idaho Code §§12‑117 or 12‑121 appropriate | Byrd/Mullins: Appeal reasonably pursued | Held: No attorney fees; costs only. §12‑117 fees not warranted; §12‑121 inapplicable to administrative-review appeals |
Key Cases Cited
- Newton v. MJK/BJK, LLC, 167 Idaho 236 (2020) (State owns beds/banks of navigable waters up to the high water mark)
- Lovitt v. Robideaux, 139 Idaho 322 (2003) (issuance of a dock permit contemplates littoral‑rights determinations under the Lake Protection Act)
- Brett v. 11th Street Dock Owners’ Ass’n, Inc., 141 Idaho 517 (2005) (Department must determine littoral rights when placement disputes arise)
- Lake CDA Invs., LLC v. Idaho Dep’t of Lands, 149 Idaho 274 (2010) (title to lakebed and scope of littoral rights tied to high‑water mark rule dating to statehood)
- Erickson v. State, 132 Idaho 208 (1998) (meander lines are not boundary lines except in special circumstances)
- In re Sanders Beach, 143 Idaho 443 (2006) (ordinary high water mark is the same around a lake and defined by vegetation/soil indicators)
- State v. Hudson, 162 Idaho 888 (2017) (Priest Lake is navigable; state regulation extends to ordinary and artificial high water marks)
- Sagewillow, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 138 Idaho 831 (2003) (res judicata applies to administrative proceedings)
- Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion, 144 Idaho 119 (2007) (elements/purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel)