Nicholls v. Blaser
| Decision Date | 16 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 13189,13189 |
| Citation | 102 Idaho 559,633 P.2d 1137 |
| Parties | David G. NICHOLLS, d/b/a Northwest Pump Company, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Respondent, v. Albert BLASER, Bruce W. Blaser, Ruth L. Blaser and Annalee H. Blaser, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Appellants. Dave NICHOLLS, d/b/a Northwest Pump Co., a sole proprietorship, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Respondent, v. Albert E. BLASER, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Jon Wyman, Boise, for defendants-counterclaimants-appellants.
E. C. Rood, Emmett, for plaintiff-counterdefendant-respondent.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the district court which affirmed a judgment entered following trial in the magistrate court. We affirm.
We believe that the only substantial question before this Court is the appropriate standard of review by the Supreme Court of a judgment entered by a district court after it has sat as an appellate court reviewing on the record a judgment entered following trial at the magistrate level.
Our previous decisions involving appeals from district courts which have acted as courts of appeal from decisions of magistrate courts do not set forth a clear standard of review to be utilized by the Supreme Court. We deem the appropriate standard of review at the Supreme Court level to be: The Supreme Court reviews the trial court (magistrate) record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions of law follow from those findings. If those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom and if the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we affirm the district court's decision as a matter of procedure. See State v. Holt, 101 Idaho ---, 625 P.2d 398 (1981) (Bistline, J., dissenting).
Defendant-appellant Blaser and plaintiff-respondent Nicholls entered into an oral agreement under which Nicholls was to install a pump and the necessary incidentals thereto in a previously existing well located on Blaser's development property in Garden Valley, Idaho.
Blaser refused to pay for the work done by Nicholls and Nicholls filed a notice of claim of lien on lots 39 and 40 of the Garden Valley Summer Homesites and later initiated the instant action to foreclose the said lien and recover attorney fees. Blaser counterclaimed alleging that the agreement had not been performed in a good and workmanlike manner and that Nicholls wrongfully and maliciously filed the lien.
Following trial at the magistrate court level, that court found that Nicholls was hired to install the pump, that no exact price was fixed therefor, that Blaser approved the list of proposed materials and left the installation to Nicholls' expertise, that Nicholls was given discretion to substitute materials, that Nicholls was not negligent, that Nicholls installed the pump in a good and workmanlike manner and that a reasonable charge for the goods and services was $1,269.99. That court further found that Nicholls' work improved the value of the property, that Blaser had paid nothing for the work and that there was no evidence of malicious acts on the part of Nicholls. That court then concluded that Blaser was indebted to Nicholls in the amount of $1,269.99 plus interest, that Nicholls had a valid lien on lot 39 in that amount and that there was no basis for any of Blaser's counterclaims. That court, pursuant to I.C. § 12-121, also awarded attorney fees to Nicholls.
Judgment was entered by the magistrate court and Blaser appealed to the district court. The district court, pursuant to I.R.C.P. 83(u)(1), reviewed the case on the record made in the magistrate court and affirmed. The district court further awarded additional attorney fees in the amount of $1,250, stating that it believed the appeal was pursued unreasonably because two of the counterclaims were frivolous and the third counterclaim and the defense to the action bordered on being frivolous.
On appeal to the Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Willoughby
...of law follow from those findings. Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670, 672, 183 P.3d 758, 760 (2008) (citing Nicholls v. Blaser, 102 Idaho 559, 561, 633 P.2d 1137, 1139 (1981)). If the district court affirmed the trial court's decision because the trial court's findings were so supported a......
-
Ustick v. Ustick
...evidence to support the magistrate's findings of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions of law follow from those findings. Id. at 561, 633 P.2d at 1139. See also Griffin v. Griffin, 102 Idaho 858, 860, 642 P.2d 949, 951 (Ct.App.1982). If those findings are so supported and the conclu......
-
Harris v. Carter
...likewise affirm the district court's decision. Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670, 672, 183 P.3d 758, 760 (2008); Nicholls v. Blaser, 102 Idaho 559, 633 P.2d 1137 (1981). The decision of the trial court on a motion to modify child support is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion. N......
-
Uzzle v. Estate (In re Hirning)
...appeal on that basis because the Appellants cited the correct standard of review.Instead of relying on Losser , the Appellants cite to Nicholls v. Blaser , for the appropriate standard of review—this Court is procedurally bound to affirm or reverse the decision of the district court, but re......