*1 166 Attorney’s M Not Entitled to enforceability D. D & is validity of restrictive Appeal.
covenants, clearly Fees on legislature would have Therefore, if them. it wished to void stated requests attorney’s fees & M’s D plain meaning of the statute and both § 12-121. appeal pursuant to Idaho Code sup statutory construction accepted rules of arguments raised Because the Romriells’ §§ judge’s view that I.C. 67- port the district respect interpreting the restrictive invalidate or render and 6531 do not 6530 legitimate present a issue covenants at least D M the & Covenants. unenforceable resolution, they are not frivo for the Court’s appeal.. The lous or unreasonable on argue the trial The Romriells’ also therefore, is, denied. support for fees Findings Fact do not court’s Romriells essential of Law. The Conclusions adopt the reason ly argue for this Court to IV. Supreme Washington Court
ing of the
CONCLUSION
Worthington,
Farm Homeowners
Mains
(1993),
C. Their Claims of Discrimina- Present P.3d 971 to the Trial Court. tion PARTNER PROPERTIES MAGNUSON Romriells base their appeal, the Partnership, SHIP, an Idaho General on the Idaho arguments of discrimination Respondent, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross seq. et Rights Act. Human this claim was legal basis of Because D’ALENE, an COEUR CITY OF judge, will this Court before the district cited Municipality, Defendant- appeal. the claim on not consider Appellant. Respondent-Cross issues not will not address En Highland the trial court. raised before No. 28392. Barker, 133 Idaho terprises, Inc. v. Supreme (1999) v. Far (citing Schiewe P.2d 996 d’Alene, Term. October well, (1993)). give did not Because the Romriells Nov. consider judge opportunity to the district of discrimina legal for its claims basis tion, such claims will not consider appeal. *2 (ITCA). judg- affirms the
Act court. ment of the district I. *3 AND
FACTS PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND property Magnuson undeveloped owned develop. In City that it within the wished 1995, early Magnuson approached the property into plan to subdivide its plan separate commercial lots. The three As a of a sewer line. called installation City required Mag- approval, the condition of prop- the line from its nuson to extend sewer by adjoining parcel owned a third erty to an objected require- to this party. increased the ment because the extension project provided no benefit to of the but cost Magnuson, city According Magnuson. reim- engineer that the would stated Magnuson for the additional cost asso- burse Magnuson asserts the extension. ciated with representation in in on this it acted reliance City re- extending line as the the sewer quired. Mag- at the direction contractor,
nuson, general Shea Con- the (Shea), a statement submitted struction City. to the Shea itemized reimbursable costs extension, to the the extra costs attributable $30,802, City pay requested the totaling City’s Public amount. The that request responded to Shea’s Director Works 13, denied 1996. any agreement between existence Magnuson and denied d’Alene, Magnuson, F. Coeur John acknowledged its reimbursement. respondent. plaintiff-appellant-cross to extend property owners policy requiring boundary of their lines to the farthest sewer d’Alene, Smith, defen- Quane How- installing line. a sewer property when L. appellant. Michael dant-respondent-cross only ever, it reimburses City asserted argued. Haman associated with for costs property owners deeper pipe and of sewer enlarging the size ON REVIEW Mag- City maintained excavation. KIDWELL, costs ex- no reimbursable Justice. incurred nuson tending line. its sewer Partnership (Magnu- Properties 13, that after son) Magnuson claims against of Coeur filed suit attempted to contact repeatedly it granted (City). The district court d’Alene reim- request for City in order to discuss be- summary judgment in favor of Magnuson on City met with of its bursement. Magnuson failed to file notice cause re- City representatives November Tort Claims the Idaho claim as genuine their denial show that iterated there is no issue as to meeting. moving party material reimbursement this On Novem- fact and that paid judgment ber Shea bal- entitled to a matter of law.” 56(c) $30,802. In project, Mag- ance owed on the I.R.C.P. a motion for sum against City mary nuson filed notice judgment, liberally of a claim 18,1997. February nonmoving construe all facts in favor of the party and draw all reasonable inferences Obtaining notice, response Mag- no to this nonmoving from the facts in favor of the 16,1998, nuson filed suit on alleging October party. Bec-Corp Living Northwest Home tort, contract, equitable Servs., City. The district court entered default (2002). Summary judgment must be Magnuson against favor on No- denied if persons reasonable could reach dif vember 1998. On December *4 fering conflicting draw conclusions or infer upon City’s motion, the district court set presented. ences from the evidence Id. entry aside the of default and allowed the to answer. The then filed a motion appeal, this Court exercises free summary judgment ground on Mag- questions review over of law. Brooks v. Lo by §§ nuson’s claim was barred I.C. 50-219 576, gan, 574, 709, 130 Idaho 944 P.2d 711 require filing and which notice of a (1997). against municipality days a within 180 from when the claim arises. The district III. granted summary judgment court in favor of City. Magnuson appealed the district ANALYSIS court’s decision aside entry to set of summary judgment default and and the Filing A. The Time For Notice Of A cross-appealed the district court’s order de- §§ Claim Under I.C. 50-219 And 6-906 nying City’s request attorney fees. Began Run When To Re- Appeals upheld The Court of the district City’s August 13, ceived The 1996 Let- entry court’s order to set aside of default but ter Of Denial. judgment summary reversed the and re- (2000) § requires filing I.C. any 50-219 manded the proceedings. ease for further damages against government claim for a en- Magnuson Props. v. P’ship of tity required by as the ITCA. Idaho Code d’Alene, 2002 (Ct.App.2002). WL 13783 (2000). § 6-901 A claimant has one hundred Appeals Court of found reversal of sum- (180) eighty days day they knew, from the or mary judgment City’s rendered the cross- known, provide should have the claim of seeks, appeal moot. Id. The now government notice entity. of the claim to the granted, this Court has review of the Court (2000). § 6-906 notice re- Idaho Code Appeal’s of decision. quirement applies equally tort claims and claims for Enterprise, breach of contract.
II. Inc. v. 96 Nampa City, Idaho STANDARD OF REVIEW 729, (1975); 536 P.2d Idaho Code (2002). §§ 50-219 and 6-906 When a case on review from is Appeals, this Court hears the mat 180-day period begins notice as if it appeal ter is on from the district court act, to run at of wrongful the occurrence a Appeal’s rather than Court of review the damages if even the extent of is not known or Swain, 624, decision. Leavitt v. 133 Idaho unpredictable Ralphs time. at the v. 627, (1999). 349, 991 P.2d 352 Lake, 225, 227, Spirit 98 Idaho 560 P.2d gives regard, deference, due but not to the (1977). 1315, “Knowledge 1317 of facts Appeals. decision the Court of Id. reasonably put prudent person which would a
Summary judgment proper inquiry,” triggers 180-day period. on when Ammon, McQuillen 719, pleadings, depositions, “the and admissions v. 113 Idaho (1987). file, affidavits, 722, together any, Compliance with the if 747 P.2d 744 180-day “mandatory governed by requirement the notice is a richment is not precedent bringing [against suit provision condition notice found 6-906. claim, city], the is fatal a failure of which to a properly Even had raised the if A legitimate.” matter how Id. claimant is no issue, § 50-219 this Court has construed I.C. to know all the facts and details require notice of all a claimant file prerequisite of a claim because such a would damages government completion delay a claimant to of their allow otherwise, entity, by the directed tort or investigation triggering the notice re- before Dean, ITCA. Sweitzer quirement. Bingham Mem’l. Mitchell (1990). P.2d Hosp., 130 City Not An Award C. The Is Entitled To that, very record reflects Attorney Of Fees. latest, knowledge City’s had may A reasonable court award February 18, it is places Magnuson’s attorney prevailing party to a when which fees beyond 180-day period. provided by statute or contract. 54(e)(1) (2002). letter A party denies the existence must assert I.R.C.P. agreement specific statutory upon between or common law rule rejects may reim which base award of attor an *5 15,1996, Assocs., August ney As a reason Bingham bursement. of v. Montane Res. fees. prudent person able and would have knowl 133 Idaho 987 P.2d act, i.e., (1999). City’s edge wrongful City of facts of the a provide a has failed to basis Therefore, alleged denial of breach of the con this the to award fees. Court and/or Therefore, 180-day period City’s request tract. the notice fees is denied. began Magnuson on provide timely to notice of claim.
failed its IV. May
Arguably, Magnuson’s asking letter for reimbursement was a notice CONCLUSION purposes claim for of the Howev of a ITCA. 13,1996 triggered City’s August letter er, argument the because this was raised for file a claim 180-day period the to notice of appeal, time on will not con first required by Tort city a as the Idaho Canyon County it. Bd. sider Whitted of result, the did Claims As a district court Act. Com’rs, P.3d summary judgment to the granting not err in 1176-77 file City ground failed to on the City notice a claim with the within 180 of Not Consider B. Court Will When days gained knowledge it of its the date from Filing The Time A For Notice Of Therefore, the court is af- claim. district Begins Under the ITCA To Run Claim firmed. not to an award is entitled Unjust AFor Claim Of Enrichment. provide attorney it to fees because failed argues the ITCA’s re- for such an award. Costs to basis requirement apply eq not notice does to its spondent. appeal, uitable claims. To raise an issue on ruling record contain an adverse the must Chief TROUT and Justices Justice assignment of error to form the basis for SCHROEDER, WALTERS, and EISMANN not consider review and this Court will or concur. appeal. raised the first time an issue on 121-22, Whitted, 137 44 P.3d at WALTERS, J., Concurring. Specially Magnuson failed to the is 1176-77. raise only point that applied § I to address a minor of whether to its write sue anomaly It may an in this case. appear As a equitable in the district court. to result, steps by Magnuson taken Magnu to relates the this Court declines decide to unjust bring damage claim to the courts. en- its that its claim son’s requirement Magnu- the un- purpose not serve as a notice to the claim. give governmental to son’s der the ITCA is a entity here, the d’Alene—an — proceed un- Because decided potential opportunity investigate interpretation steps der own of the to be respon- the decide it so could whether suggesting to the followed without courts pay sible for the the claim debt route, correct alternative agreeable in Ml in either or some amount put to reconstruct the case and settlement, reject or to the claim and let the I proper Accordingly, track. concur with proceed legal claimant with a action for col- approach expressed opin- the Court’s Magnuson’s agent, lection. The letter from concerning role ion Shea, May 10, purpose. served legally played in this case. If, review, paid after had or settled claim, then this not have case would EISMANN, concurs. J. proceeded through the courts. Under I.C. days notify ninety had writing approval the claimant in of its or statute,
denial the claim. Pursuant to the
a claim shall be deemed denied if at end period ninety-day
of the has failed deny Here, approve or the claim. denied the claim on some PROPERTIES, The JOHN W. BROWN ninety-five days after May 10. The Plaintiff-Appellant, rejecting reason the claim is irrelevant. point, my opinion, Magnuson At that was rejected file an free to action to on the collect COUNTY, body BLAINE State of claim. did not need later send politic political subdivision *6 in a addressing second claim dis- same Idaho, duly acting through State of its pute already when that claim had been de- elected Board Commissioners now by operation nied perti- (William) the terms serving: and Maxine A.W. rejection nent statute in Molyneux, wife; Moly husband fact. Partnership; neux brothers Ruth Schoessler, widow; In and Lakeside However, Magnuson rely not to chose dustries, Defendants-Respondents. May 10 letter of claim. In- No. 27647. stead, Magnuson pursue continued to discus- attempt sions in an to receive Supreme Court of project’s reimbursement for costs. When Falls, Twin November Term. attempts futile, proved Magnu- February son Nov. sent another demand notice 1997, and then filed suit that demand when out, rejected. course,
was As turned
February un- 1997 notice of claim was held
timely by upon the district court facts
presented argued by parties in this
case. correctly opinion
The Court’s case that notes did not contend in the May district court that 10 letter had effect a notice claim under the ITCA. Indeed, appeal even at oral on this subject broached, Magnuson was when position took the did