MICHAEL BUDIG, TODD BRINKMEYER, JOHN STOCKTON, and PRIEST LAKE CABIN OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.vs. BONNER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, TRICORE INVESTMENT, LLC,, 51870

Tricore acquired three Priest Lake tracts and recorded documents splitting them into 35 lots, including 26 lakefront lots not at issue here. 1
Tricore then filed two MLD applications for the remaining southern parcels, each proposing four lots and together covering eight lots. 2
Bonner County’s code treats MLDs as four-or-fewer lots, short plats as five-to-ten lots, and subdivisions as eleven or more lots. 3
The county approved both MLD applications, and the written approvals contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law. 4
Appellants sought reconsideration and judicial review, arguing the two contiguous MLDs were really an eight-lot subdivision and that LLUPA procedures were violated. 5
The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding MLDs were not subject to judicial review under LLUPA. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are MLD applications judicially reviewable under LLUPA? 7	Budig: MLDs are similar, authorized applications under section 67-6521.	Tricore: LLUPA covers only expressly listed land-use applications.	Yes; section 67-6521 reaches similar, authorized applications like these MLDs. 8
Do the two MLDs function as a subdivision? 9	Budig: contiguous four-lot MLDs together create an eight-lot subdivision.	Tricore: each application independently creates only four lots.	Yes; together the applications were a subdivision in substance. 10
Were the MLD applications authorized under LLUPA? 11	Budig: Bonner County created MLDs under LLUPA authority.	Tricore: MLDs are not specifically listed in LLUPA.	Yes; Bonner County adopted MLDs pursuant to LLUPA authority. 12
Did the district court lack subject matter jurisdiction? 13	Budig: jurisdiction existed because LLUPA applied.	Tricore: no jurisdiction because MLDs are outside LLUPA.	No; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was reversed. 14

City of Ririe v. Gilgen, 515 P.3d 255 (Idaho 2022) (subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo 15)
City of Idaho Falls v. H-K Contractors, Inc., 416 P.3d 951 (Idaho 2018) (plain and unambiguous statutes are enforced as written 16)
Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 224 P.3d 458 (Idaho 2008) (courts consult construction rules only if statutory text is ambiguous 17)
JK Homes, LLC v. Brizzee, 554 P.3d 568 (Idaho 2024) (statutes should be construed to avoid superfluity 18)
Friends of Farm to Mkt. v. Valley Cnty., 46 P.3d 9 (Idaho 2002) (statutory language should not be rendered insignificant 19)
State v. Smalley, 435 P.3d 1100 (Idaho 2019) (rejects readings that make statutory words superfluous 20)
Syringa Networks, LLC v. Idaho Dep't of Admin., 305 P.3d 499 (Idaho 2013) (used for the proposition that the MLD filing attempted to circumvent subdivision requirements 21)