Weisel v. BEAVER SPRINGS OWNERS ASS'N, INC.
152 Idaho 519
| Idaho | 2012Background
- Weisel owned Lots 13 and 14 in Beaver Springs; in 1983 he sought to unify the lots and remove the setback lines.
- Beaver Springs approved the plan via an Agreement, unifying the lots and removing setback lines, with a condition that the unified parcel could not be split or developed as two parcels.
- Construction completed in 1985, with all structures on Lot 14; the former setback area and part of Lot 13 remained undeveloped.
- In 1986 the Declaration was amended to give the unified lot only one vote, but for 22 years Weisel was treated as having two votes and paid double assessments.
- In 2005 Weisel filed suit seeking rescission/reformation; Beaver Springs moved for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment for Beaver Springs, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed.
- The central issues include mutual mistake, consideration, condition precedent, voting rights, and related remedies; the court held against Weisel on all appealed grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Weisel's mutual mistake claim is time-barred | Weisel argues mutual mistake warranted rescission/reformation | Beaver Springs argues statute of limitations bars the claim | Waived due to failure to raise in opening brief; statute of limitations independent ground reached on appeal |
| Whether the Agreement was supported by consideration | Beaver Springs lacked power to condition development; consideration absent | Design Committee had discretion to approve/disapprove changes and thus provided consideration | Summary judgment upheld; agreement supported by consideration |
| Whether removal of setback lines was a condition precedent | Setback removal was a condition precedent to enforceability | Language shows immediate effect upon execution, not contingent on construction | Condition precedent not found; agreement effective upon execution |
| Whether changed neighborhood conditions invalidated the covenant | Changed conditions should extinguish or reform the covenant | Doctrine inapplicable to a single lot; contract should not be reformed | Doctrine inapplicable; no reform of a private, single-lot covenant |
| Whether Weisel has two voting rights under the Declaration | Twin voting rights existed due to years of practice | Unification yields a single lot with one vote | Weisel entitled to a single vote as owner of one unified parcel |
Key Cases Cited
- Petricevich v. Salmon River Canal Co., 92 Idaho 865 (1969) (mutual mistake and contract principles cited by court)
- World Wide Lease, Inc. v. Woodworth, 111 Idaho 880 (Ct.App. 1986) (consideration and failure of consideration principles)
- Marysville Dev. Co. v. Hargis, 41 Idaho 257 (1925) (fully executed contract requires performance by all parties)
- W.L. Scott, Inc. v. Madras Aerotech, Inc., 103 Idaho 736 (1982) (presumption of consideration when instrument is written)
- Bakker v. Thunder Spring-Wareham, LLC, 141 Idaho 185 (2005) (interpretation of contract language to determine intent)
- McMinn v. Holley, 86 Idaho 186 (1963) (determine whether language creates a condition precedent)
- Twin Lakes Village Property Association, Inc. v. Crowley, 124 Idaho 132 (1993) (distinguishes voting rights cases from bylaws with explicit provisions)