336 P.3d 281
Idaho2014Background
- Roger and Barbara Stephens (as trustees) owned contiguous parcels separated by a highway; Northern Title prepared title work and a legal description for the sale of the west-side parcel but prepared an erroneous description that included east-side land and two unrelated parcels.
- Stephen Cummings contracted (via assignment from Three Bar Ranches) to buy based on the contract and title commitment that used Northern Title’s erroneous legal description; he paid $50,000 for the assignment.
- Northern Title discovered the error, attempted a partial correction, and later unilaterally altered and re-recorded the deed to exclude land easterly of Highway 30 without Cummings’s consent; a title policy later issued that covered only the west-side parcel.
- Cummings sued Stephens and Northern Title on multiple theories (breach of warranty, conversion, slander of title, negligence, bad faith, breach of escrow duties, breach of title policy, emotional distress); claims against Stephens were dismissed at trial and judgment was entered against Northern Title for $50,000 (the assignment payment).
- On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of claims against Stephens but reversed the judgment against Northern Title, holding the district court erred in treating Northern Title as liable as an abstractor of title and concluding Northern Title had not assumed the abstractor duties that would create that negligence liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in dismissing claims against Stephens | Stephens instigated correction and is liable for altering/recording Correction Deed and breaching warranties | Stephens did not participate in or authorize altering/re-recording; no evidence he altered deed | Affirmed dismissal: no evidence Stephens altered or recorded deed; claims against him unsupported |
| Whether oral findings satisfied I.R.C.P. 52(a) after involuntary dismissal | Oral findings were insufficient; written findings required per precedent | Oral findings here adequately addressed dispositive issue | Overruled prior cases to extent they required written findings; oral findings were sufficient here |
| Whether Northern Title was liable as an abstractor/title-abstract company for negligent preparation of legal description | Cummings: Northern Title negligently prepared legal description causing reliance and $50,000 loss | Northern Title: acted as title/escrow/agent but did not assume abstractor duties; title insurers/agents aren’t automatically abstractors | Reversed judgment against Northern Title: no evidence it assumed abstractor duties; issuing commitment/policy alone doesn't impose abstractor liability |
| Whether trial court properly excluded Cummings’s expert for late disclosure | Exclusion prejudices plaintiff and harms his ability to prove damages | Both parties missed deadlines; court’s scheduling order and equal treatment justify exclusion | No abuse of discretion: court excluded expert under I.R.C.P. 26/37 sanctions consistent with order |
Key Cases Cited
- Powers v. Tiegs, 108 Idaho 4, 696 P.2d 855 (Idaho 1985) (discusses adequacy of trial court findings under Rule 52)
- Sorenson v. Adams, 98 Idaho 708, 571 P.2d 769 (Idaho 1977) (earlier authority on findings of fact and written orders)
- Keenan v. Brooks, 100 Idaho 823, 606 P.2d 473 (Idaho 1980) (standards for involuntary dismissal and court’s role weighing evidence)
- Brown’s Tie & Lumber Co. v. Chicago Title Co. of Idaho, 115 Idaho 56, 764 P.2d 423 (Idaho 1988) (title insurer/agent duties do not make insurer an abstractor; negligence principles distinct from title insurance duties)
- Hillock v. Idaho Title & Trust Co., 22 Idaho 440, 126 P. 612 (Idaho 1912) (nature and obligations of abstractor of title)
- White v. Unigard Mut. Ins. Co., 112 Idaho 94, 730 P.2d 1014 (Idaho 1986) (elements of insurer bad-faith tort)