Galvin v. City of Middleton, 434 P.3d 817

Martin and Patricia Galvin sued the City of Middleton seeking quiet title/declaratory relief and injunction to preserve a prescriptive easement over Willis Road, alleging continuous use since 1949.
The City had acquired Willis Road in 2015 and contested existence/extent of the easement but did not deny long-term use.
The Galvins moved for summary judgment; the district court found no genuine dispute on abandonment, granted the easement, and later ordered a specific legal description.
The City argued the Galvins abandoned the easement by applying for and obtaining rezoning of their property and disputed the easement width.
The district court awarded attorney fees to the Galvins under Idaho Code § 12‑117, finding the City’s defense frivolous in part; it reduced the award to account for an erroneous legal description initially submitted by the Galvins.
The City appealed; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment, upheld the fee award, and awarded appellate fees to the Galvins.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Galvins abandoned the prescriptive easement	Rezoning application did not change actual use; no intent or clear act to abandon	Rezoning application and participation in hearings showed intent/act to abandon	Summary judgment for Galvins affirmed; rezoning alone insufficient to show abandonment (no clear, unequivocal act)
Whether the district court abused discretion in awarding attorney fees under I.C. § 12‑117	City’s defense was frivolous/unreasonable and prolonged litigation; fees appropriate	City had at least one legitimate issue (dimensions/location) so fees inappropriate	Fee award not an abuse of discretion; court properly apportioned fees for frivolous aspects and reduced for legitimate portions
Whether the district court’s initial lack of precise easement description invalidated proceedings	Galvins: subsequent amended judgments cured description error	City: lack of description at summary judgment stage raised legitimate defense	Error was harmless; court later allowed briefing and issued proper legal description
Entitlement to appellate attorney fees	Galvins: appeal was frivolous and fees should be awarded under § 12‑117	City: not prevailing; no entitlement	Appellate fees awarded to Galvins; appeal found frivolous in part

Mortensen v. Berian, 163 Idaho 47 (2017) (defines abandonment of an easement requires intent plus a clear, unequivocal, decisive act)
Weaver v. Stafford, 134 Idaho 691 (2000) (act of destroying property subject to easement can satisfy abandonment act element)
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Washington Fed. Sav. , 135 Idaho 518 (2001) (prior line of cases limiting fee awards later abrogated)
Idaho Military Historical Soc'y, Inc. v. Maslen, 156 Idaho 624 (2014) (abrogates rigid rule from Nampa & Meridian; calls for holistic good-faith inquiry for fee awards)
Morgan v. New Sweden Irrigation Dist., 156 Idaho 247 (2014) (judgment determining easement must specify location, width, and length)
Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508 (2015) (clarifies standard for awarding fees as for frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation claims)
Syringa Networks, LLC v. Idaho Dep't of Admin., 159 Idaho 813 (2016) (upholds fee awards where agency doggedly defended process despite controlling precedent)