Marian G. Hoke v. NeYada, Inc.
2016 Ida. LEXIS 393
Idaho2016Background
- Hoke (trustee) owned a 1.96-acre mobile home park in Canyon County, Idaho; NeYada entered a lease plus option to purchase executed Nov 7, 2014, for $200,000 with credits tied to lease payments.
- Upon execution NeYada took actual possession, opened escrow, managed the park, registered mobile homes, paid taxes, posted notices, and began making monthly payments into escrow; Hoke received $1,610 (prorated November rent) and later instructed tenants to pay her after rescinding.
- Hoke sent counsel’s letter (Dec 1, 2014) asserting the Lease and Option violated the statute of frauds, then sued (Jan 2015) to invalidate them; NeYada counterclaimed for enforcement and to enjoin Hoke from collecting rent.
- District court granted summary judgment for Hoke, holding the Lease and Option invalid for inadequate legal description under the statute of frauds and that part performance did not apply.
- On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court declined to decide adequacy of the written descriptions, but held part performance by NeYada removed the contract from the statute of frauds and vacated the attorney’s fees award, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hoke) | Defendant's Argument (NeYada) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether part performance removes the Contract from the statute of frauds | Hoke argued the parties’ written instruments failed the statute of frauds and that acts did not constitute sufficient part performance | NeYada argued its possession, management, escrow payments, and other acts were part performance sufficient to enforce the Contract | Court: NeYada’s receipt of possession and substantial, specifically referable acts constituted part performance; vacated district court and remanded |
| Whether the Lease and Option descriptions satisfy the statute of frauds | Hoke: descriptions are inadequate and contracts void | NeYada: descriptions (and extrinsic references) are adequate to identify the property | Court: Did not decide adequacy on appeal (resolved by part performance ruling) |
| Whether Hoke was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs as prevailing party | Hoke: district court awarded fees after invalidating Contract | NeYada: argued award improper if judgment reversed | Court: vacated attorney’s fees award because Hoke is no longer prevailing party after reversal on part performance |
Key Cases Cited
- Simons v. Simons, 134 Idaho 824, 11 P.3d 20 (2000) (part performance can overcome statute of frauds when purchaser largely performed)
- Bear Island Water Ass'n v. Brown, 125 Idaho 717, 874 P.2d 528 (1994) (acts by purchaser may remove contract from statute of frauds)
- Boesiger v. Freer, 85 Idaho 551, 381 P.2d 802 (1963) (acts must be specifically referable to agreement for part performance)
- Roundy v. Waner, 98 Idaho 625, 570 P.2d 862 (1977) (actual possession and permanent improvements are most important acts of part performance)
- Ray v. Frasure, 146 Idaho 625, 200 P.3d 1174 (2009) (property description must allow exact identification; extrinsic references may suffice)
- Allen v. Kitchen, 16 Idaho 133, 100 P. 1052 (1909) (reference to extrinsic record can satisfy property-description requirement)