Kayser v. McClary
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87622
D. Idaho2012Background
- Kaysers filed Second Am. Compl. asserting breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, trespass, and quiet title/injunction.
- After a five-day October 2011 jury trial, the verdict found McClary’s father competent to execute the Grant of Easement and that there was valid consideration for it.
- Jury found McClary breached the Grant of Easement, trespassed on the easement, and tortiously interfered with the Kaysers’ contract to sell to the Richardsons, with $15,000 damages and $8,000 punitive damages awarded.
- Kaysers moved to amend judgment to quiet title, remove the fence, and obtain a permanent injunction; also sought higher punitive damages to cover attorneys’ fees and sought costs and attorneys’ fees awards.
- McClary renewed Rule 50(a)/50(b) challenges, arguing Idaho Economic Loss Doctrine barred tort damages and that there was no consideration, among other points.
- The court granted in part the Kaysers’ Rule 59(e)/59(e)-type requests: it quieted title to the Grant of Easement, ordered fence removal, denied a permanent injunction after fence removal, and awarded costs and substantial attorneys’ fees on various statutory grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic Loss Doctrine applicability | Kaysers argue TORT damages recoverable for interference with contract despite doctrine. | Economic Loss Doctrine bars purely economic torts in Idaho except certain contexts; no recovery allowed here. | Doctrine does not outright bar tortious interference with contract. |
| Existence of consideration for Grant of Easement | Presumption of consideration applies; lack of direct evidence does not negate it. | No witness testified to consideration; no valid consideration existed. | Presumption of consideration stands; insufficient to defeat jury finding. |
| Quiet title to Grant of Easement | Court should quiet title and declare easement valid; grant relief including removal of fence. | No competing evidence; defenses insufficient to negate easement. | Grant of Easement is valid; title quieted in Kaysers; fence to be removed within 14 days. |
| Punitive damages and attorneys’ fees | Increase punitive damages to at least attorney’s fees; punitive damages should reflect fee burden. | Punitive damages not tied to attorney’s fees; statutory scheme does not authorize such increase. | Punitive damages not increased to equal fees; fees awarded separately under statutes. |
| Awards of costs and attorneys’ fees | Prevailing party entitled to costs and fees; Idaho law applies; seek substantial fee award. | Dispute over what costs/fees are recoverable; some items not recoverable. | Costs awarded; total reduced where appropriate; attorneys’ fees awarded under 12-121 in amount specified. |
Key Cases Cited
- E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2009) (review standard for Rule 50(b) post-trial motions; plain-error review limits)
- White v. Ford Motor Co., 312 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2002) (test for substantial evidence on Rule 50(b) motions)
- Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 279 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2002) (plain-error review in post-trial Rule 50(b) context)
- Giles v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2007) (economic loss doctrine in various contexts; exceptions exist)
- Garner v. Povey, 259 P.3d 608 (Idaho 2011) (attorney’s fees under 12-120(3) in commercial-transaction context)
- Cox v. Cox, 71 P.3d 1028 (Idaho 2003) (attorney’s fees and punitive-damages considerations in Idaho)
- Duffin v. Idaho Crop Improvement Ass'n, 126 Idaho 1002 (1995) (economic-loss doctrine limited; general rule and exceptions)
- Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 803 P.2d 993 (Idaho 1991) (12-121 fee-shifting standards and discretion)
- Baxter v. Craney, 16 P.3d 263 (Idaho 2000) (12-120(3) applies to commercial transactions; not all property disputes)