Grant Lee v. Jeremy Litster
161 Idaho 546
| Idaho | 2017Background
- In 2009 Jeremy Litster solicited transfers from friends/family to fund an EB-5 "investment" managed by Marc Jenson; four promissory notes from Jenson to Jeremy totaled $900,000 and a personal guarantee by Doug Roberts existed.
- Three contested promissory notes were later issued by Jeremy to Jason Lee ($8,000), Scott McNab ($25,000), and Rick Lee ($10,000); some notes were back-dated to March 2009.
- Plaintiffs (Grant Lee, Jason Lee, McNab) demanded notes in late 2010; Jeremy issued the notes and made partial payments in Jan–June 2011, then stopped in July 2011 after learning the Idaho Department of Finance had been alerted.
- Plaintiffs sued in July 2014 for breach of contract; the district court granted Plaintiffs' summary judgment on July 24, 2015, finding (1) defendants failed to establish duress and (2) Jeremy ratified the notes by making payments.
- On appeal the Litsters challenged duress, characterization of transfers, and consideration, but did not challenge the district court's ratification finding. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, relying on the unchallenged ratification ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of promissory notes | Notes are enforceable; Plaintiffs seek judgment for unpaid amounts | Litsters dispute authenticity/characterization of transfers (investment vs personal loan) and consideration | Affirmed enforcement because district court's ratification finding was not challenged on appeal |
| Duress defense | Plaintiffs argue no duress; notes valid | Litsters claim notes were issued under duress and thus unenforceable | District court found Litsters failed to raise a genuine factual dispute on duress; appellate court declined to address duress because ratification independently supports judgment |
| Consideration argument | Plaintiffs contend valid contracts supported by consideration | Litsters argue lack of consideration for notes | Not reached on appeal given ratification ground; summary judgment stands |
| Attorney's fees on appeal | Plaintiffs request fees under I.C. § 12-120(3) as a commercial transaction | Litsters oppose | Denied: Plaintiffs failed to brief or cite record support showing commercial-transaction basis as required by appellate rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801 (Idaho 2012) (summary-judgment standard on appeal)
- Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160 (Idaho 2002) (liberal construction and inferences for nonmoving party at summary judgment)
- Lapham v. Stewart, 137 Idaho 582 (Idaho 2002) (standards for reviewing legal questions after summary judgment)
- Safaris Unlimited, LLC v. Von Jones, 158 Idaho 846 (Idaho 2015) (quoting Conner on summary judgment review)
- Conner v. Hodges, 157 Idaho 19 (Idaho 2014) (summary-judgment principles)
- Weisel v. Beaver Springs Owners Ass'n, Inc., 152 Idaho 519 (Idaho 2012) (failure to challenge all independent grounds for summary judgment is fatal on appeal)
- Andersen v. Prof'l Escrow Servs., Inc., 141 Idaho 743 (Idaho 2005) (judgment may be affirmed on unchallenged alternative grounds)
- AED, Inc. v. KDC Investments, LLC, 155 Idaho 159 (Idaho 2013) (appellate requirement to address all independent grounds sustaining summary judgment)
- Marek v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 50 (Idaho 2012) (appellate briefing requirements for contentions and citations)