318 P.3d 952
Idaho2014Background
- Co-owners Juan Cuevas and Yrene Baez owned property; in 2001 Cuevas allegedly sold to Barraza for $80,000; Barraza paid some and vacated after promise of $20,000 upon sale.
- Barraza recorded a $20,000 lien in 2002 using a form resembling a mechanic’s lien but stating unpaid refund on real estate title.
- In 2003 Wilfrido Cuevas moved onto the property under an oral agreement to buy for $80,000 and began paying about $800/month.
- A 2007 quiet title action by Cuevas/Baez resulted in a default judgment quieting title for them; Barraza’s motions and appeal followed.
- Cuevas later paid the balance and obtained a quitclaim deed to Wilfrido in 2007; CA reversed in 2008 leading to a remand and default judgment against Barraza in the quiet title action.
- On remand (2012), the district court granted Cuevas summary judgment on the vendee’s lien issue; on appeal, the court held there was a potential lien issue but affirmed based on nonchallenge of all independent grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of the vendee’s lien under the statute of frauds | Cuevas argues Barraza’s lien is invalid if the contract is not enforceable under the statute of frauds. | Barraza contends the lien is enforceable despite potential fraud-sfraud issues. | Affirmed; district court ruling sustained on unchallenged independent ground(s). |
| Whether the vendee’s lien action is time-barred by the statute of limitations | Cuevas contends the action is barred by limitations on remand. | Barraza asserts limitations do not bar the action. | Affirmed; Court did not reach or decide on the ground due to failure to contest all grounds. |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Cuevas requests fees on appeal under §12-121. | Barraza seeks fees; Cuevas opposes or provides no argument. | Barraza not prevailing; Cuevas not entitled to fees; costs awarded to respondent. |
Key Cases Cited
- AED, Inc. v. KDC Investments, LLC, 155 Idaho 159 (Idaho 2013) (affirmative rule: appellate must challenge all independent grounds for summary judgment)
- Weisel v. Beaver Springs Owners Ass’n, Inc., 152 Idaho 519 (Idaho 2012) (must challenge all grounds; failure to do so sustains the judgment)
- Andersen v. Prof’l Escrow Servs., Inc., 141 Idaho 743 (Idaho 2005) (disposition of multiple grounds for summary judgment)