Hull v. Geisler, 409 P.3d 827

Hull and Giesler entered into agreements for subdivision development; Hull sold his interest to Giesler for $200,000 but retained entitlement to one-half of net profits and an obligation to reimburse a prorated share of development costs upon sale of remaining lots.
The parties’ oral agreement did not define which development costs would be shared; this led to litigation over which direct and indirect costs were reasonable and allocable.
This appeal arises from the second trial; the district court identified and apportioned particular development costs and ordered Hull to reimburse Giesler for those costs.
Hull sought to introduce opinion testimony from expert Greg Ruddell about reasonableness of claimed development expenses; the district court excluded Ruddell’s testimony under Idaho Rules of Evidence 701 and 702.
On appeal Hull argued (1) the exclusion of Ruddell’s testimony was an abuse of discretion and (2) the district court erred in identifying/allocating development costs; the Supreme Court affirmed.
The Court awarded appellate attorney fees to Giesler under Idaho Code § 12-120(3) as the prevailing party in a commercial transaction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of expert testimony (Ruddell)	Ruddell should have been permitted to opine on reasonable development costs	Trial court properly excluded testimony because it would not assist the trier of fact and intruded on court’s fact‑finding role	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Hull’s challenge was conclusory and insufficient
Allocation of development costs	District court misallocated costs and allowed improper reimbursements	District court correctly identified and reasonably allocated direct and indirect costs	Affirmed — Hull waived meaningful challenge by failing to cite record or legal authority
Preservation/waiver of issues on appeal	Raised multiple issues but lacked record citations and argument	Court should enforce briefing and preservation rules	Court held issues waived where brief made only general attacks without cogent argument or record citations
Attorney fees on appeal	Hull sought fees as prevailing party	Giesler sought fees under § 12‑120(3) (and § 12‑121)	Giesler awarded fees under § 12‑120(3) as prevailing party in a commercial transaction

Griffith v. Clear Lakes Trout Co., 143 Idaho 733 (discusses review of court trial findings and standard for clearly erroneous)
Weeks v. E. Idaho Health Servs., 143 Idaho 834 (district court has broad discretion to qualify experts and admit opinion testimony)
Athay v. Stacey, 142 Idaho 360 (framework for reviewing discretionary rulings)
Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784 (issues mentioned in passing without cogent argument are waived)
Garner v. Povey, 151 Idaho 462 (prevailing party in commercial transactions may recover attorney fees under § 12‑120(3))
Prop. Mgmt. W., Inc. v. Hunt, 126 Idaho 897 (profit‑sharing/development agreements are commercial transactions)