Valiant Idaho v. VP Incorporated, 429 P.3d 855

Background

Failed golf-course development (The Idaho Club) by POBD led to multiple loans, unpaid taxes, and mechanic’s liens; several lenders’ loans were assigned to Valiant Idaho, LLC (Valiant).
Valiant redeemed delinquent taxes, recorded a redemption deed, was substituted as real party in interest, and filed for judicial foreclosure on mortgages securing the loans.
VP acquired certain lots (water/sewer lagoon and well parcels) via quitclaim deeds and claimed prescriptive easements and an equitable servitude for the infrastructure.
District court granted a series of summary-judgment rulings (after motions and reconsideration practice) that Valiant’s mortgages and redemption deed were senior to VP’s interests; one substantive issue (whether notes were satisfied) went to trial and favored Valiant.
After foreclosure sale, Valiant purchased most parcels; disputes arose over possession, inspections, and essential water/sewer services, producing a writ of assistance and a post-judgment injunction requiring VP to continue water/sewer service until Valiant could provide replacements.
On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed judgment except it vacated and remanded the district court’s discretionary-cost apportionment for further explanation.

Issues

Issue	Valiant's Argument	VP's Argument	Held
Priority of Valiant mortgages over VP interests	Valiant argued its recorded mortgages (and redemption payment) were senior under Idaho’s race-notice recording law.	VP argued some parcels weren’t encumbered and asserted prescriptive easement/equitable servitude that would beat Valiant.	Court affirmed: Valiant’s mortgages prevail; VP failed to produce contrary admissible evidence.
Existence of prescriptive easement	Valiant: VP’s use was permissive/insufficient and VP failed to meet prescriptive elements on admissible evidence.	VP: infrastructure in place >20 years; use ripened into prescriptive rights.	Court affirmed summary judgment for Valiant: Villelli’s statements were conclusory and indicated permissive operation, not adverse use.
Equitable servitude / notice to lenders	Valiant: No evidence predecessors had notice; VP failed to show the PSA was given to lenders or link notice down the chain.	VP: PSA excluded infrastructure from sale and lenders (via agent) had notice, creating a factual dispute.	Court affirmed: VP’s “understanding” testimony was conclusory and insufficient; issues raised first on appeal were not considered.
Post-judgment injunction/TRO ordering continued service	Valiant: Emergency relief preserving property and preventing damage justified use of I.A.R.13(b)(10) and I.R.C.P.62(c) to require continued essential services.	VP: Order exceeded scope of appellate-rule relief, compelled services without contract, and tied obligation to Valiant’s well construction.	Court affirmed injunction as within district court’s jurisdiction and not an abuse of discretion to preserve status quo and prevent property harm.
Award and apportionment of discretionary costs	Valiant: Discretionary costs were necessary/exceptional and the court may apportion costs among defendants.	VP: Apportionment formula lacked stated reasons; court abused discretion in applying percentage shares without explanation.	Court vacated and remanded discretionary-cost award for the district court to explain and justify apportionment consistent with precedent.

Key Cases Cited

Chandler v. Hayden, 147 Idaho 765 (clarifies Idaho summary-judgment standard and burden shifting)
Beckstead v. Price, 146 Idaho 57 (elements required to establish prescriptive easement)
Fuquay v. Low, 162 Idaho 373 (permissive use cannot ripen into prescriptive easement)
Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 411 (inconsistent testimony can create genuine issue on continuous/open easement use)
Hardy v. McGill, 137 Idaho 280 (nature and effect of a redemption deed)
Kiebert v. Goss, 144 Idaho 225 (summary-judgment burdens and nonmoving party’s obligation to supply contrary evidence)
Blickenstaff v. Clegg, 140 Idaho 572 (nonmoving party must do more than conclusory assertions to create genuine issue)