Elsaesser v. Riverside Farms, Inc., 513 P.3d 438

Decedent Victoria H. Smith owned the "Chinden Property." Her holographic will left everything to son Vernon; Vernon transferred assets to VHS Properties, LLC.
Probate proceedings concluded the will was invalid; a magistrate entered a Rule 70(b) judgment vesting all estate real property (including the Chinden Property) in the Personal Representative; this was affirmed on appeal (Matter of Estate of Smith).
Separately, Joseph (another son) sued Vernon in Smith v. Smith over juniper trees along an access easement; that case sought injunctive relief about tree trimming and was dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute before ownership was adjudicated.
The Personal Representative leased the Chinden Property to Riverside Farms through 3/31/2020; Riverside remained in possession after the lease expired and the Personal Representative brought ejectment proceedings.
Riverside argued the Personal Representative lacked standing because the earlier Smith dismissal precluded the Rule 70(b) ownership determination by res judicata; the district court granted partial judgment for the Personal Representative and ordered ejectment; district court denied Riverside’s motions for reconsideration and to amend.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed: res judicata did not bar the Rule 70(b) judgment, the Personal Representative had standing, the denial of reconsideration was not reversed, and the Personal Representative was awarded attorney fees on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / res judicata effect of Smith dismissal	PR: Rule 70(b) judgment vested ownership in PR, so PR has standing to eject	Riverside/Vernon: Smith dismissal with prejudice adjudicated ownership (VHS), so Rule 70(b) was precluded	Court: Smith litigated tree/easement issues, not ownership; claim and issue preclusion do not apply; PR has standing
Denial of motion for reconsideration	PR: district court properly applied standards; denial not abused	Riverside: denial erroneous (argued below but failed to develop on appeal)	Court: Riverside waived/developed no cogent argument; no abuse of discretion; affirmed
Attorney fees on appeal	PR: appeal was frivolous/unreasonable; seeks fees under I.C. § 12‑121	Riverside: requested costs and reserved attorney‑fee issue for remand	Court: appeal was unreasonable and without foundation; awarded attorney fees to PR under § 12‑121 and costs as prevailing party

Matter of Estate of Smith, 164 Idaho 457, 432 P.3d 6 (2018) (affirming magistrate’s Rule 70(b) vesting of estate property in personal representative)
Elsaesser v. Gibson, 168 Idaho 585, 484 P.3d 866 (2021) (elements required for ejectment action)
Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion, 144 Idaho 119, 157 P.3d 613 (2007) (standards for claim and issue preclusion)
Berkshire Invs., LLC v. Taylor, 153 Idaho 73, 278 P.3d 943 (2012) (test for claim preclusion)
Magic Valley Radiology, P.A. v. Kolouch, 123 Idaho 434, 849 P.2d 107 (1993) (transactional test for claim preclusion)
Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 281 P.3d 103 (2012) (standard for reviewing motions for reconsideration)
Barmore v. Perrone, 145 Idaho 340, 179 P.3d 303 (2008) (Rule 59(e) relief is discretionary; abuse‑of‑discretion review)