450 P.3d 292
Idaho2019Background
- In July 2010 Erickson, a licensed land surveyor, prepared a record of survey for the Walkers and rejected an original stone monument (the Carl Edwards monument), relocating the corner and failing to note an adjacent highway-district parcel.
- Complaints about Erickson's 2010 survey reached the Board: an unsworn Badertscher letter in Feb. 2011 and a Walker letter in Mar. 2015.
- The Board’s Executive Director, Keith Simila, filed a sworn complaint (affidavit) on Oct. 28, 2015; an administrative hearing occurred June 20–22, 2016.
- Erickson left the hearing before presenting his case; the Board later found several statutory and rule violations and revoked his license (Order Aug. 17, 2016).
- The district court affirmed most findings but reversed the revocation as an unreasonable sanction and remanded; Erickson appealed.
- The Idaho Supreme Court held the Executive Director’s October 2015 complaint was time-barred under IDAPA 10.01.02.011.01 (two-year affidavit filing rule), reversed the district court’s substituted opinion, and vacated the Board’s order as made upon unlawful procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board's Oct. 28, 2015 complaint was time-barred under IDAPA 10.01.02.011.01 (two-year affidavit filing rule) | Erickson: Board discovered the matter by Feb. 2011 and thus the sworn affidavit was filed more than two years after discovery, so complaint is untimely | Board: did not address IDAPA two-year rule in detail at appellate stage; argued it complied with I.C. §54-1220(2) via extension orders for six-month hearing deadline | Held: Complaint was time-barred under IDAPA 10.01.02.011.01; Board action violated procedure and order vacated |
| Whether the Board violated I.C. §54-1220(2) (hear within six months) | Erickson: cited both IDAPA and §54-1220(2) limitations | Board: obtained extension orders (May 5, 2011 and June 15, 2015) and thus did not violate §54-1220(2) | Held: Court acknowledged §54-1220(2) was not violated, but that did not cure the IDAPA two-year filing defect |
| Whether procedural errors at the hearing (denial of continuance, refusal to disqualify Board, proceeding after Erickson left) require reversal | Erickson: Board committed multiple procedural errors prejudicing his rights | Board: contested but district court largely upheld factual findings; Supreme Court did not reach these claims | Held: Supreme Court did not address these remaining procedural claims because it disposed of the appeal on the timeliness ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline of Idaho State Bd. of Med., 134 Idaho 449 (strong presumption of validity for agency action)
- Paul v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline of Idaho State Bd. of Med., 134 Idaho 838 (defer to agency fact findings unless clearly erroneous; substantial-evidence standard)
- Podsaid v. State Outfitters & Guides Licensing Bd., 159 Idaho 70 (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Kimbrough v. Idaho Bd. of Tax Appeals, 150 Idaho 417 (statutory interpretation is question of law)
- Kimbrough v. Reed, 130 Idaho 512 (accrual can be question of law or fact depending on disputed material facts)
- Nerco Minerals Co. v. Morrison Knudsen Corp., 140 Idaho 144 (where no disputed material facts, accrual is a question of law)
- Esquivel v. State, 128 Idaho 390 (amendment shortening limitations period can apply from effective date without violating reliance interests)
- Univ. of Utah Hosp. on Behalf of Harris v. Pence, 104 Idaho 172 (same principle regarding limitations amendments)