Frank Ronald Marek v. Earl A. Lawrence
278 P.3d 920
| Idaho | 2012Background
- The Mareks sue the Lawrences over two boundary line disputes between sections 26 and 27, centered on Three Bear Road and the section line between them.
- The district court concluded the Johnson-Adamson Deed created a boundary but later reconsidered, finding no boundary by agreement and that the Johnson-Adamson Deed reflected intended boundaries.
- The district court relied on extrinsic evidence (e.g., Johnson affidavit and deed references) to interpret the Johnson-Adamson Deed, despite the deed being unambiguous.
- The district court described a boundary by agreement implied from the Johnson-Adamson Deed and located the boundary along the center of Three Bear Road, extending north, with the road right of way carved out.
- The Johnson-Adamson Deed described conveyance to Adamson and excluded the road right of way; the Right of Way Deed then defined the road’s location and area.
- This Court holds that the district court erred by considering extrinsic intent and evidence, vacates the judgment, and remands for proceedings consistent with an unambiguous deed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err by considering extrinsic intent? | Marek | Lawrence | Yes; court erred in using extrinsic intent |
| Is there an express or implied boundary by agreement based on the Johnson-Adamson Deed? | Marek | Lawrence | Boundary by agreement/implication not supportable by language alone |
| Should attorney fees on appeal be awarded to the Lawrences under I.C. § 12-121? | Lawrence | Marek | No; Lawrences not prevailing party; no award |
Key Cases Cited
- Read v. Harvey, 141 Idaho 497 (2005) (ambiguity requires fact-finding with surrounding circumstances)
- Porter v. Bassett, 146 Idaho 399 (2008) (ambiguity and extrinsic evidence may justify parol evidence)
- Ray v. Frasure, 200 P.3d 1174 (2009) (deeds sufficient if language establishes boundaries from the face or external reference)
- Baxter v. Craney, 135 Idaho 166 (2000) (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)
- Aguilar v. Coonrod, 151 Idaho 642 (2011) (prevailing party and fee-shifting standards on appeal)
- Bagley v. Thomason, 149 Idaho 799 (2010) (fees on appeal require proper argument and prevailing party status)