Franklin Building Supply v. Aaron Hymas, 339 P.3d 357

Background

FBS sued Aaron Hymas to collect on a guaranty Hymas signed for Crestwood Construction, seeking unpaid charges on Crestwood’s open account (invoices mainly from 2007) plus interest, fees, and costs.
FBS moved for summary judgment supported by an affidavit of its credit manager (Pietrucci), a credit application/guaranty signed by Hymas, and a customer transaction report showing the account balance. Hymas submitted no admissible contrary evidence at the summary-judgment stage.
Hymas argued summary judgment was barred by the statute of limitations, that account charges might be unauthorized because only three named individuals could order, and that he needed discovery/deposition (Rule 56(f)); he later abandoned the statute‑of‑limitations claim on appeal.
After judgment, FBS moved to correct a clerical error in its affidavit to increase the interest/total; the district court allowed the correction.
Hymas filed two motions to reconsider: the first raised unsigned invoices, alleged unauthorized orders, small-font interest clause, and (in reply) that the corporation that incurred the 2007 charges was a different entity (dissolved/reincorporated) than the one he guarantied. The court rejected new arguments and unsworn exhibits and denied relief. The second reconsideration was denied as procedurally flawed (but the Idaho Supreme Court found the denial correct on other grounds—untimely/unsupported affidavit).
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for FBS, permitted the interest correction, rejected Hymas’s factual challenges for lack of admissible evidence, and awarded FBS appellate attorney fees under the guaranty.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (FBS)	Defendant's Argument (Hymas)	Held
1. Was summary judgment appropriate?	FBS: affidavit + credit application/guaranty + account statement establish breach and amount; burden shifts to Hymas to produce admissible evidence of a factual dispute.	Hymas: account summary may include unauthorized or undelivered charges; unsigned invoices and lack of proof who ordered create material factual issues.	Affirmed: FBS made a prima facie showing; Hymas produced no admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute.
2. Should FBS be allowed to correct its calculation of interest after judgment?	FBS: clerical error in affidavit; correction merely adds post‑complaint interest requested in complaint and authorized by contract.	Hymas: broadly objects but provided no developed argument or authority showing error.	Affirmed: district court permissibly corrected clerical mistake; appellant did not properly brief an error.
3. Did the court err denying Hymas’s first motion for reconsideration?	FBS: original summary judgment record supported judgment; Hymas’s affidavits were conclusory, speculative, or raised new issues without sworn evidence.	Hymas: raised unsigned invoices, prior unauthorized purchases, unreadable/small-font interest clause, and corporate dissolution (in reply).	Affirmed: district court properly rejected conclusory assertions, new arguments in reply, and unsworn attachments; interest-font argument unsupported and abandoned on appeal.
4. Did the court err denying Hymas’s second motion for reconsideration?	FBS: motion lacked timely/supported affidavit when filed; procedurally defective and unsupported.	Hymas: timely filed motion within 14 days of judgment and later supplied affidavit showing dissolution/reincorporation.	Affirmed: although district court erred in theory about procedural impropriety, the motion lacked the affidavit served with the motion and within the filing period, so denial was proper.

Key Cases Cited

Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 281 P.3d 103 (2012) (summary judgment standard review)
Mosell Equities, LLC v. Berryhill & Co., 154 Idaho 269, 297 P.3d 232 (2013) (elements of breach of contract)
Chandler v. Hayden, 147 Idaho 765, 215 P.3d 485 (2009) (burden on nonmoving party to present contradictory admissible evidence)
Corbridge v. Clark Equip. Co., 112 Idaho 85, 730 P.2d 1005 (1986) (mere scintilla insufficient to withstand summary judgment)
Stapleton v. Jack Cushman Drilling & Pump Co. Inc., 153 Idaho 735, 291 P.3d 418 (2012) (Rule 56(f) continuance requires a motion and affidavit)
Puckett v. Oakfabco, Inc., 132 Idaho 816, 979 P.2d 1174 (1999) (documents supporting/oppose summary judgment must be attached to an affidavit)
Zenner v. Holcomb, 147 Idaho 444, 210 P.3d 552 (2009) (contractual fee provisions enforceable)
Agrisource, Inc. v. Johnson, 156 Idaho 903, 332 P.3d 815 (2014) (clarifies reconsideration timing under I.R.C.P. 11(a)(2)(B))
J.R. Simplot Co. v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 120 Idaho 849, 820 P.2d 1206 (1991) (appellate courts may affirm on correct legal theory even if district court relied on erroneous one)
Kuhn v. Coldwell Banker Landmark, Inc., 150 Idaho 240, 245 P.3d 992 (2010) (supporting materials for time‑limited motions must be filed within the prescribed period)
Jensen v. State, 139 Idaho 57, 72 P.3d 897 (2003) (court may refuse to consider affidavits not served with the motion)