351 P.3d 1195
Idaho2015Background
- Vendors owned Crystal Springs Farm (~4,000 acres; ~3,000 farmable) in Owyhee County and leased portions to farmers; Jay P. Clark (Vendors’ attorney) obtained a fraudulent one-year lease and a claimed 10% interest by filing/recording documents that clouded title.
- November 2010 Vendors agreed to sell to Murphy Land Company for $9,500,000; amendment provided $3,000,000 held in trust to cover purchaser’s delay damages.
- Sale closed December 30, 2010; Clark refused to vacate unless paid; Purchaser sought possession; eviction delayed until May 2, 2012.
- February 2011 Vendors sued Clark; February 2012 Purchaser sued to remove Clark; possession finally obtained by Purchaser in May 2012; damages dispute set for summary judgment in November 2013.
- Purchaser moved for summary judgment supported by a 182-page Frank Tiegs affidavit alleging damages over $3,000,000; Vendors submitted four opposing affidavits; district court sustained objections and granted summary judgment for Purchaser.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Edmunds affidavit | Edmunds qualified; scheduling order violated. | Edmunds lacked proper expert disclosure; objections timely. | Affirmed; Edmunds’ challenged portions struck consistent with rulings. |
| Clark affidavit treated as expert | Clark's affidavit should be expert testimony with disclosure. | Clark not timely disclosed; treated as lay testimony. | Affidavit treated as lay; admissibility rulings upheld. |
| Liberal construction versus admissibility | Admissible evidence should be construed liberally for summary judgment. | Admissibility separate from sufficiency; no liberal rule for admissibility. | Admissibility rulings sustained; not in dispute. |
| District court’s factual inferences at summary judgment | Court should make inferences in vendors’ favor. | Court may not weigh credibility or infer beyond admissible evidence at summary stage. | Court not required to draw all inferences in favor of nonmovant; findings not erroneous. |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Vendors entitled to fees under contract and Idaho Code. | Purchaser prevailing party; contract/fees statute favor Purchaser. | Purchaser awarded costs and attorney fees on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gem State Ins. Co. v. Hutchison, 145 Idaho 10 (Idaho, 2007) (objection to admissibility of affidavits may be raised at hearing)
- Hecla Mining Co. v. Star-Morning Mining Co., 122 Idaho 778 (Idaho, 1992) (timeliness of objections to evidence)
- State v. Grazian, 164 P.3d 790 (Idaho, 2007) (affirmative ruling on grounds not challenged on appeal)
- Cristo Viene Pentecostal Church v. Paz, 160 P.3d 743 (Idaho, 2007) (contractual damages interpretation on summary judgment)
- Beus v. Beus, 254 P.3d 1231 (Idaho, 2011) (credibility and findings at summary judgment; Beus as controlling)