Harris Family Limited Partnership v. Brighton Investment LLC
150 Idaho 583
Idaho2011Background
- Brighton purchased land from Harris under restrictive covenants that ran with the land limiting use to residential development.
- Brighton later conveyed 21.54 acres of Harris’s property to Boise State University, with knowledge that BSU would ultimately transfer to the School District for non-residential use.
- The School District condemned the restrictive covenants, and Harris and the School District settled, valuing the covenants at $175,000.
- Harris filed third-party claims against Brighton for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
- The district court dismissed Harris’s contract and implied-duty claims and later granted summary judgment on the unjust enrichment claim; Harris appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Brighton breach the restrictive covenants by conveying to BSU with non-residential intent? | Harris asserts Brighton breached covenants by conveying with knowledge of non-residential use. | Knowledge of potential future breach by a third party is not a breach; covenants run with the land but were condemned. | No breach; dismissal proper. |
| Did the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing survive the covenant condemnation? | Breach of implied duty occurred when covenants were extinguished or not enforced. | Duty does not impose liability once covenants are condemned and Brighton is no longer bound. | Dismissal proper; no viable claim. |
| Was Harris entitled to recovery for unjust enrichment from Brighton’s sale to BSU? | Brighton was unjustly enriched by profiting from mitigating the covenants’ burden. | Harris sold at market value; no benefit conferred for Brighton to unjustly retain. | Summary judgment for Brighton; no unjust enrichment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shawver v. Huckleberry Estates, LLC, 140 Idaho 354 (Idaho 2004) (restrictive covenants run with the land and bind successors)
- Noh v. Cenarrusa, 137 Idaho 798 (Idaho 2002) (ripeness doctrine and present adjudication need)
- Gillette v. Storm Circle Ranch, 101 Idaho 663 (Idaho 1980) (measure of unjust enrichment is value of benefit conferred)
- Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. Peiper, 133 Idaho 82 (Idaho 1999) (unjust enrichment requires inequitable retention of benefit)
- King v. Lang, 136 Idaho 905 (Idaho 2002) (inequity in unjust enrichment requires unfair transaction)