Chavez v. Canyon County, 271 P.3d 695

Chavez filed a December 4, 2009 class action complaint seeking declaratory relief and damages for alleged failure to provide an itemized statement of costs in the notice of pending tax deed under I.C. § 63-1005(4)(d).
The County’s Notice of Pending Issue of Tax Deed for two Chavez/Mercado parcels charged a $500 flat administration fee, tied to County Resolution No. 09-169.
The district court denied Chavez’s summary-judgment motion and ordered Chavez to file a petition for judicial review under I.C. § 63-1006(4); Chavez filed the petition 10 days later.
The district court later required the County to file Affidavits of Compliance; Chavez moved for contempt when timely compliance did not occur, but the County eventually complied.
The district court ruled the flat fee violated § 63-1005(4)(d) and voided the notices; it denied costs and found a contempt motion moot after compliance; final judgment issued November 10, 2010, followed by notices of appeal and cross-appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court lacked authority to convert the declaratory action to a petition for judicial review.	Chavez contends conversion was improper and the court lacked jurisdiction.	County argues proper procedural route was followed.	District court erred; conversion was improper and court lacked jurisdiction.
Whether the notice violated 63-1005(4)(d) by itemizing costs.	Chavez asserts notice failed to itemize all costs and fees.	County argues flat fee plus itemization complied with statute.	Yes; flat fee did not itemize costs/fees; notices deficient and void.
Whether Chavez’s motion for contempt was properly handled.	County failed to timely comply, deserving sanctions.	Compliance occurred; motion moot or within court discretion.	Ruling to deem the contempt motion moot was proper.
Whether Chavez is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.	Chavez seeks fees under I.C. §§ 12-121, 12-117(1).	Defendant did not sufficiently justify fees; pro se status forecloses attorney fees.	Attorney fees on appeal denied; pro se status limits fee recovery.

Winther v. Village of Weippe, 91 Idaho 798, 430 P.2d 689 (Idaho 1967) (declaratory judgments and exhaustion of remedies considerations can apply when appropriate)
V-1 Oil Co. v. County of Bannock, 97 Idaho 807, 554 P.2d 1304 (Idaho 1976) (proper method to contest agency decisions and need to exhaust remedies)
Carter v. State, Department of Health & Welfare, 103 Idaho 701, 652 P.2d 649 (Idaho 1982) (declaratory judgments not always substitutes for appeals; exhaustion principle)
Wasden v. Maybee, 148 Idaho 520, 224 P.3d 1109 (Idaho 2010) (statutory interpretation and review standards governing notices)
Kivett v. Owyhee Cnty., 58 Idaho 372, 74 P.2d 87 (Idaho 1937) (purpose of notice requirements to prove notice to property owner)
Cluff v. Bonner Cnty., 126 Idaho 950, 895 P.2d 551 (Idaho 1995) (notice adequacy and statutory compliance)
State v. Schwartz, 139 Idaho 360, 79 P.3d 719 (Idaho 2003) (plain meaning of statutory terms governs interpretation)
V-1 Oil Co. v. County of Bannock, 97 Idaho 807, 554 P.2d 1304 (Idaho 1976) (affects how declaratory actions relate to statutory procedures)