Joseph Bolognese v. Paul Forte
292 P.3d 248
Idaho2012Background
- Buyers purchased Hayden Lake property from Sellers for $675,000 in 2005, including a historic house, garage, and guest cabin on ~1.7 acres.
- Sellers’ renovations included an above-garage living area; permits and septic approvals for these structures were incomplete or noncompliant.
- Buyers’ daughter moved in temporarily in 2006, then left due to multiple reliability and maintenance issues (pipes freezing, mold smell, drainage concerns).
- Buyers discovered permit lapses and septic deficiencies during later inspections; the garage permit lapsed after Sellers obtained county approval for an accessory living unit instead of storage space.
- Sellers provided a property disclosure form under Idaho’s Property Condition Disclosure Act, answering no substantial additions were made without a permit.
- Plaintiffs sued in 2007 for violations of the Disclosure Act, misrepresentation, and breach of contract, and sought rescission in the alternative; the district court then proceeded to a jury verdict finding no liability or breach on all theories; the court denied various post-trial motions and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mutual mistake evidence barred at trial | Buyers argue mutual mistake evidence was relevant. | Sellers contend mutual mistake was unpled and improper for jury trial. | No reversible error; equitable relief is not available to jurors; district court did not err in excluding the evidence. |
| Evidence of lack of knowledge as a defense | Buyers sought exclusion of evidence suggesting Sellers’ lack of knowledge. | Sellers’ lack-of-knowledge evidence rebutted misrepresentation claims and was properly admitted. | District court did not err; denial of the in limine and admission of rebuttal evidence was proper. |
| Amendment to conform to evidence (Rule 15(b)) | Buys sought to amend to address mutual mistake based on trial evidence. | No implied consent to try unpleaded issue; amendment would prejudice Sellers. | No abuse of discretion; mutual mistake was not pleaded and not tried by consent. |
| Judicial notice of ordinances and rules | District court should have take judicial notice of building codes and IDAPA rules. | Practically, the court relied on parties to propose instructions; counsel failed. | Court properly declined to take judicial notice; it was not argued in a proper instruction. |
| Award of rescission based on mutual mistake | Mutual mistake justification for rescission should be considered. | Mutual mistake was not pled; rescission denied on the merits of pleaded theories. | Rescission not warranted; mutual mistake not plead; no basis for rescission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Christensen v. Hollingsworth, 6 Idaho 87, 53 P. 211 (Idaho Supreme Court (1898)) (equitable issues invoke court’s equitable jurisdiction; jury trial limits)
- O’Connor v. Harger Constr., Inc., 145 Idaho 904, 188 P.3d 846 (Idaho Supreme Court (2008)) (mutual mistake must be proven to grant equitable relief)
- Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784, 229 P.3d 1146 (Idaho Supreme Court (2010)) (equitable theories require independent findings by court)
- Lettunich v. Key Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 141 Idaho 362, 109 P.3d 1104 (Idaho Supreme Court (2005)) (proof of knowledge may underpin misrepresentation/concealment claims)
- Sowards v. Rathbun, 134 Idaho 702, 8 P.3d 1245 (Idaho Supreme Court (2000)) (misrepresentation/disclosure standards)
- Primary Health Network, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Admin., 137 Idaho 663, 52 P.3d 307 (Idaho Supreme Court (2002)) (mutual mistake/administrative remedies in equity)
- Holscher v. James, 124 Idaho 443, 860 P.2d 646 (Idaho Supreme Court (1993)) (equitable remedies require showing grounds like mutual mistake)
- Ervin Constr. Co. v. Van Orden, 125 Idaho 695, 874 P.2d 506 (Idaho Supreme Court (1993)) (rescission not available where breach is incidental to contract)
- White v. Mock, 140 Idaho 882, 104 P.3d 356 (Idaho Supreme Court (2004)) (timeliness and scope for rescission under Disclosure Act)
- M. K. Transport, Inc. v. Grover, 101 Idaho 345, 612 P.2d 1192 (Idaho Supreme Court (1980)) (implied consent requirements for unpleaded issues)
- Chapman v. Chapman, 147 Idaho 756, 215 P.3d 476 (Idaho Supreme Court (2009)) (preservation/ objection requirements for jury instructions)