Campbell v. Kvamme, 316 P.3d 104

The Campbells and the Kvammes own adjoining parcels in Bonneville County; a longstanding fence separates the properties and Campbells claim the true boundary lies ~15 feet north of the fence.
The Campbells obtained a Thompson survey (2009) locating the boundary 15 feet north of the fence; the Kvammes installed a center-pivot irrigation system that encroaches on that disputed strip.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Campbells submitted an attorney affidavit attaching the Thompson survey; the Kvammes submitted an affidavit from a licensed surveyor asserting the fence aligns with the original 1877 section survey and is the true boundary.
The district court excluded the Thompson survey for lack of proper foundation (because it was supported only by the attorney affidavit) and granted summary judgment quieting title for the Kvammes.
The Campbells filed a motion for reconsideration attaching an affidavit from Kevin Thompson (the surveyor); the court denied reconsideration as the affidavit was not "new" and was untimely under the scheduling order.
On appeal, Campbells challenged only the court’s refusal to consider Thompson’s affidavit as new evidence; the Supreme Court affirmed because the Campbells failed to challenge the independent ground that the affidavit was untimely under the court’s scheduling order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by disregarding surveyor Thompson's affidavit on reconsideration	Thompson affidavit provides necessary foundation and constitutes evidence the court must consider on reconsideration	Affidavit was not new and was untimely under the scheduling order; original summary record lacked proper foundation for the survey	Affirmed: appeal fails because Campbells did not challenge the district court’s independent timeliness/scheduling-order ground for denial
Whether summary judgment can be upheld on alternative theories (adverse possession or boundary by agreement)	(argued only if reversal) Campbells dispute long-standing boundary	Kvammes argue fence creates boundary by agreement/acquiescence and alternative adverse-possession theories	Not decided on merits; cross-appeal improper because district court made no ruling on those theories
Whether cross-appeal by Kvammes properly presents alternative grounds for affirmance	N/A	Kvammes sought to preserve alternative affirmance theories on appeal	Rejected: cross-appeal improperly before Supreme Court because no adverse district-court ruling on those grounds
Whether either party entitled to attorney fees on appeal	Campbells sought fees	Kvammes sought fees	Denied: neither party prevailing for fee award; Kvammes’ cross-appeal was frivolous so no prevailing-party fees; costs awarded to Kvammes

A & J Const. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 141 Idaho 682, 116 P.3d 12 (discussing summary judgment standard)
Smith v. Meridian Joint Sch. Dist. No. 2, 128 Idaho 714, 918 P.2d 583 (summary judgment when no disputed material facts)
McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765, 820 P.2d 360 (construe disputed facts favorably to nonmoving party)
Heinze v. Bauer, 145 Idaho 232, 178 P.3d 597 (summary judgment decided on admissible evidence)
Badell v. Beeks, 115 Idaho 101, 765 P.2d 126 (moving party entitled to judgment when nonmoving party fails to prove essential element)
AED, Inc. v. KDC Investments, LLC, 155 Idaho 159, 307 P.3d 176 (when summary judgment is granted on multiple independent grounds, appellant must challenge all to prevail)
Weisel v. Beaver Springs Owners Ass’n, Inc., 152 Idaho 519, 272 P.3d 491 (same principle regarding independent grounds)
Andersen v. Prof’l Escrow Servs., Inc., 141 Idaho 743, 118 P.3d 75 (same principle regarding disregarding erroneous ground if another stands)
Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n v. Idaho Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 125 Idaho 401, 871 P.2d 818 (standards for awarding attorney fees)
Backman v. Lawrence, 147 Idaho 390, 210 P.3d 75 (fees not awarded for non-frivolous, good-faith arguments)