Kennedy v. Schneider, 259 P.3d 586

Kennedys filed to quiet title to three parcels west of the South Fork of the Clearwater River after discovering deeds in others' names misdescribed their holdings.
District court found adverse possession under a written claim of title, concluding Kennedy possession since 1988, color of title, exclusive use, continuous possession, and tax payments by Kennedy and Schneiders.
District court applied Trappett v. Davis rule that payment of taxes by both record owner and adverse occupant favors the adverse possessor.
District court awarded Kennedys $6,137.50 in attorney fees for defense of the action.
On appeal, Schneiders challenged the adverse-possession finding and the tax-payment evidence; Kennedys sought fees on appeal.
Idaho Supreme Court vacated the decree quieting title and the fee awards, reversing due to lack of substantial evidence that taxes were paid on the disputed parcel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was adverse possession proven, including tax payment?	Schneiders argue tax evidence is insufficient under the tax-payment requirement.	Kennedys rely on decades of tax payment showing compliance with I.C. § 5-210(2).	No substantial evidence taxes were paid on the disputed parcel; adverse possession not proven.
Did the district court correctly apply the tax-payment rule to metes-and-bounds parcels?	Schneiders contend tax parcels mapped by metes and bounds do not support tax payment on the disputed land.	Kennedys contend historical tax payment on equivalent acreage fits exceptions to the tax rule.	Tax parcel method failed to meet the lot-number or same-acreage doctrine; proper tax evidence lacking.
Does the award of attorney fees depend on prevailing status after reversal?	Kennedys argue fees were warranted for defense and appellate work.	Schneiders contend fees should not be awarded where adverse-possession claim fails.	Fees awarded on trial; reversing judgment vacates fee award; remand for costs to Schneiders.
Are Kennedys entitled to attorney fees on appeal?	Kennedys seek appellate fees under I.C. § 12-121.	Schneiders assert Kennedys did not prevail and hence cannot recover appellate fees.	Kennedys are not prevailing parties on appeal; appellate fees denied.

DeChambeau v. Estate of Smith, 132 Idaho 568 (1999) (establishes elements of adverse possession with written claim of title)
Scott v. Gubler, 95 Idaho 441 (1973) (tax payments on disputed parcel where lot-number analysis applies)
White v. Boydstun, 91 Idaho 615 (1967) (tax-payment requirement supported by assessor's physical examination approach)
Trappett v. Davis, 102 Idaho 527 (1981) (explains exceptions to tax payment requirement (lot-number, same-acreage))
Flynn v. Allison, 97 Idaho 618 (1976) (tax payment variable based on acreage and assessment realities)
Wilson v. Gladish, 140 Idaho 861 (2004) (same-acreage exception expands tax-payment theory)
Baxter v. Craney, 135 Idaho 166 (2000) (limits on tax payment fiction when metes-and-bounds precise)