Berian v. Berberian

• Decision Date: 02 November 2020
• Docket Number: Docket No. 47122
• Citation: 483 P.3d 937,168 Idaho 394
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: Galust BERIAN, a single individual; and Julia Berian, a single individual, Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants-Appellants, v. Ovanes BERBERIAN, a single individual; and Socorro Berberian, a single individual, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Respondents.

168 Idaho 394

483 P.3d 937

Galust BERIAN, a single individual; and Julia Berian, a single individual, Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants-Appellants,

v.Ovanes BERBERIAN, a single individual; and Socorro Berberian, a single individual, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Respondents.

Docket No. 47122

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, May 2020 Term.

Opinion Filed: November 2, 2020

Dunn Law Office, PLLC, Rigby, and Whittington Law Office, Chtd., Idaho Falls, for appellants, Galust and Julia Berian. Robin D. Dunn argued.

Hopkins Roden Crockett Hansen & Hoopes, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for respondents, Ovanes and Socorro Berberian. Lary S. Larson argued.

STEGNER, Justice.

This case arises out of a number of disputes between two brothers, Galust Berian (Galust) and Ovanes Berberian (Ovanes). In June 2017, Galust and Julia Berian (Julia is the daughter of Galust and the niece of Ovanes) were arrested after Ovanes reported to law enforcement that Galust and Julia had stolen several items from him. After the reported theft, Galust and Julia were arrested for unlawful entry onto property shared by Ovanes and his ex-wife, Socorro Berberian (Socorro), and for resisting arrest. After these charges were dropped, Galust and Julia brought a lawsuit against Ovanes and Socorro, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, defamation, breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and conversion. Ovanes filed a counterclaim seeking redress for conversion.

Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment on all of Galust's and Julia's claims, which the district court granted except for their conversion claim. The district court also certified its grant of partial summary judgment as final pursuant to I.R.C.P. 54(b), a process which allowed Galust and Julia to appeal the district court's decision even though all of the claims between the parties had not been resolved.

Galust and Julia appeal from the grant of summary judgment, arguing that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact exist with respect to each of their other causes of action. Ovanes and Socorro respond, arguing summary judgment was proper because Galust and Julia failed to establish one or more elements of each of their claims. In addition, Ovanes and Socorro argue that Galust and Julia failed to establish a genuine factual issue in regard to Ovanes’ and Socorro's affirmative defenses, including the judicial privilege doctrine and the statute of limitations.

For the reasons outlined in this opinion, we affirm the grant of summary judgment regarding the tort claims of invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress, as well as the contract and fraud claims. However, we reverse the grant of summary judgment regarding the claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, and defamation.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Galust and Ovanes are Russian artists who immigrated to the United States and now reside in eastern Idaho. From April to June of 2017, they were involved in a series of disputes in which Ovanes claimed that Galust and his daughter, Julia, had stolen property from him, including multiple paintings and frames, a trailer, and a water pump. According to Ovanes, while he was teaching in California, his assistant notified him that his painting, titled "The Approaching Storm," was missing. After returning home, Ovanes found "dozens of other paintings and frames missing" from his home and storage shed. He also discovered that his flatbed trailer was missing. Ovanes’ security system had been disabled during the thefts; Ovanes suspected that Galust had taken the items as he was among the few people with knowledge of the location of the security cameras and their power supply. On May 9, 2017, Ovanes reported the purported theft by Galust to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office.

Ovanes claims that later, on June 19, 2017, Galust and Julia drove a van onto his property,¹ towing Ovanes’ flatbed trailer. Ovanes alleges that the two broke into his home and returned "The Approaching Storm" painting. Galust and Julia then went to Ovanes’ storage shed, and allegedly stole a water pump and several more paintings. All of this activity was purportedly recorded on Ovanes’ security cameras.² Ovanes called the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office to report the trespass and break-in while Galust and Julia were still on his property.

Later that same night, Ovanes alleges that Galust and Julia returned to his home and instigated an argument with Ovanes.³ During that time, Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies arrived to investigate the alleged break-in. The deputies arrested Galust for unlawful entry, and arrested Julia for resisting an officer.

Ovanes provided a written statement to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office, detailing the break-in and the missing items. Ovanes argues that this statement was accurate to the best of his knowledge and contained his honest belief that Galust and Julia had stolen his property.

Galust provides a much different explanation of how the painting ended up in his possession, and what happened the night he returned it. According to Galust, in the spring of 2017, Ovanes had mentioned his struggles with completion of "The Approaching Storm" painting. Galust alleged that he offered to re-work the painting for Ovanes and took the painting back to his studio to complete it.⁴ Galust maintained that even though Ovanes knew Galust had the painting, Ovanes reported to law enforcement that the painting was stolen.

On June 19, 2017, after learning that Ovanes had reported "The Approaching Storm" stolen, Galust asserts that he called Ovanes and told him that he would return the painting to Ovanes’ house. Additionally, Galust alleges that Ovanes had given him permission to pick up the water pump and additional paintings. Galust and Julia also claim that Galust owns the trailer in question.⁵ After Galust and Julia entered Ovanes’ property, their account of what happened largely matches what Ovanes stated happened. Galust and Julia acknowledge that Ovanes called the police; however, they contend Ovanes falsely accused the two of trespassing and theft. While Galust and Julia were "visiting and conversing with" Ovanes, Jefferson County Sheriff's deputies arrived and arrested Galust and Julia.⁶

Following the arrests of Galust and Julia, the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office executed a search warrant at Galust's residence on June 22, 2017. During the execution of the search warrant, the Sheriff's deputies seized a flatbed trailer and a water pump. They also seized Galust's cell phone and laptop.

Independent of the events giving rise to the allegations of theft, Galust and Julia also allege that Ovanes previously hired the two to perform "extensive construction and landscaping work" and to make improvements to the property where Ovanes lived. Ovanes’ ex-wife, Socorro, actually owned the property; however, she let Ovanes use it. Galust and Julia assert that they performed the work, planting numerous shrubs, trees, and flowers, and made other major improvements to the land. The two also maintain they built a large storage building at Ovanes’ request. According to Galust and Julia, Ovanes refused to pay them for the work they performed on the property.

Finally, Galust alleges that Ovanes stole a painting from him , this one titled, "Moonlight in Yalta." Ovanes denies stealing the painting. Rather, Ovanes argues that he was working on the painting at Galust's request.

Galust and Julia filed a lawsuit against Ovanes and Socorro⁷ for various causes of action including: (1) malicious prosecution; (2) defamation; (3) invasion of privacy; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (7) breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. Galust also sued Ovanes for conversion for the purported theft of one of his paintings. Ovanes filed a counterclaim against Galust for conversion, alleging that Galust had stolen over twenty-one paintings and frames.

Ovanes and Socorro moved for summary judgment on all of Galust's and Julia's claims. On February 8, 2019, the district court entered its decision and order regarding Ovanes’ and Socorro's motion for summary judgment. The district court considered Galust's and Julia's claims as falling into three broad categories: (1) claims based on the false police reports; (2) claims for landscaping and construction work performed on Socorro's property; and (3) a conversion claim based on an allegation that Ovanes stole one of Galust's paintings. The police reports gave rise to claims of malicious prosecution, invasion of privacy, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The landscaping and construction work gave rise to claims of breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.

As for the malicious prosecution claims, the district court granted summary judgment because there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether probable cause existed for Galust's and Julia's arrests. The district court concluded that "the prosecutor applied for and received a search warrant based on the information that he possessed, which would have required a showing of probable cause." Further, the district court concluded that the judicial privilege doctrine barred the claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy.

Additionally, the district court granted summary judgment on the contract claims because it found that those claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The district court concluded that because Galust and Julia had failed to provide any dates for the work allegedly performed, or any proof that they had performed any work at all, there was no...