Bonz v. Sudweeks, 119 Idaho 539, 808 P.2d 876 (Idaho 1991)

• Decision Date: 29 March 1991
• Docket Number: No. 18335,18335
• Citation: 119 Idaho 539,808 P.2d 876
• Parties: Ronald T. BONZ and Ruth I. Bonz, husband and wife; Elbert L. Haye and Margaret T. Haye, husband and wife; Stanley V. Haye, Sr. and Joyce Ann Haye, husband and wife; Larry Hughes and Leslie L. Hughes, husband and wife; Stanley V. Haye, Jr. and Patricia E. Haye, husband and wife; and Jack A. Gibson, all individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Jay D. SUDWEEKS, J. Dee May, Jon J. Shindurling, Mark Stubbs, and L. Jay Mitchell, individually and as partners of Sudweeks, May, Shindurling, Stubbs & Mitchell, a partnership and Sudweeks, May, Shindurling, Stubbs and Mitchell, a partnership, Defendants-Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

119 Idaho 539

808 P.2d 876

Ronald T. BONZ and Ruth I. Bonz, husband and wife; Elbert L. Haye and Margaret T. Haye, husband and wife; Stanley V. Haye, Sr. and Joyce Ann Haye, husband and wife; Larry Hughes and Leslie L. Hughes, husband and wife; Stanley V. Haye, Jr. and Patricia E. Haye, husband and wife; and Jack A. Gibson, all individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Jay D. SUDWEEKS, J. Dee May, Jon J. Shindurling, Mark Stubbs, and L. Jay Mitchell, individually and as partners of Sudweeks, May, Shindurling, Stubbs & Mitchell, a partnership and Sudweeks, May, Shindurling, Stubbs and Mitchell, a partnership, Defendants-Respondents

No. 18335

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 29, 1991, Filed

David W. Thompson, Jerome, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Eberle, Berlin, Kading, Turnbow & McKlveen, Boise, for defendants-respondents. Bradley G. Andrews argued.

Boyle, Justice. Bakes, C.J., and Bistline, Johnson and McDevitt, JJ., concur.

OPINION BY: BOYLE

OPINION

[119 Idaho 539] [808 P.2d876] In this appeal we are called upon to determine whether the existence of a cloud on the title to real property which continued [119 Idaho 540] [808 P.2d877] because of a failure to properly record a release of lis pendens is sufficient damage for a professional malpractice action to accrue.

The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' case on the basis that the action had accrued at the time the cloud on title was allowed to remain and the two-year statute of limitations in I.C. § 5-219(4) had expired prior to plaintiffs filing their complaint. For reasons set forth herein, we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.

The plaintiffs in this action were owners of real property located in Jerome County, Idaho, at the intersection of Interstate 84 and State Highway 93, and were former clients of the attorneys and law firm named as defendants. In early 1985, several real property transactions and exchanges involving land in Lincoln County and Jerome County, Idaho, occurred which resulted in litigation and, relative to the instant appeal, the filing and recording of a lis pendens on real property located in Jerome County.

Defendants in this action were attorneys retained in that prior case to provide legal services to plaintiffs herein related to the real property transactions and resulting litigation. Negotiations between the parties in that prior action resulted in settlement of the controversy and the attorneys prepared settlement and dismissal documents, together with a release of lis pendens intended to be recorded in Jerome County. Following settlement of the controversy a paralegal at defendants' law office mailed the release of lis pendens to Lincoln County where it was recorded. Unfortunately, the original lis pendens sought to be released had been recorded in Jerome County and not in Lincoln County. As a result, the original lis pendens filed in Jerome County was not released and continued to be a cloud on the title to plaintiffs' property.

In March, 1987, the cloud on the title of plaintiffs' Jerome County real property was discovered by a third-party investor who had intended to invest $ 300,000.00 in the development of that property. As a result of the unreleased lis pendens remaining on the county records, the third-party investor refused to participate or have any further involvement in the development of plaintiffs' Jerome County property. The third-party investor did not advise plaintiffs that the presence of the lis pendens was the reason for withdrawing his offer of financial support for development of the property. As a result, plaintiffs were unable to obtain financing for the project.

In January, 1988, plaintiffs were not able to meet financial obligations on a note secured by the Jerome County property and a foreclosure action was commenced. In April, 1988, it was discovered by the parties to this action that the release of lis pendens had been recorded by the attorneys in the wrong county. On January 6, 1989, this action for damages alleging professional malpractice was filed.

The following dates and events are crucial to the issues presented in this appeal:

March 13, 1986 Release of Lis Pendens recorded in Lincoln County

March, 1987 Third party investor learns of Lis Pendens on Jerome County records and withdraws offer of $ 300,000.00 financial investment in plaintiffs' property

April, 1988 Plaintiffs discover Lis Pendens has not been released from Jerome County records

January 6, 1989 Complaint in this action filed seeking damages for professional malpractice

The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis that the two-year statute of limitations in I.C. § 5-219(4) had expired prior to the complaint being filed on January 6, 1989, because plaintiffs had been damaged at the time of recording the release of lis pendens in the wrong county on March 13, 1986. As a result of the cloud remaining on the title to the Jerome County property on March 13, 1986, the trial court held that plaintiffs could not freely transfer the property and their action had accrued at that time.

[119 Idaho 541] [808 P.2d878] For reasons set forth herein, we reverse the trial court's granting of summary judgment and remand the action for further proceedings.

I.

STANDARD FOR REVIEW -- SUMMARY JUDGMENT

"A motion for summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleading, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P....