Crane v. Godfrey

• Docket Number: 50835
• Decision Date: 12 July 2024
• Parties: KAREN CRANE, Plaintiff-Respondent- Cross Appellant, v. CLESTON GODFREY, KRISTIE GODFREY, TRI-C a Partnership, aka TRI-C PTN; and all persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiffs' ownership or any cloud on plaintiff's title, Defendants-Appellants- Cross Respondents. CLESTON GODFREY, KRISTIE GODFREY, TRI-C a Partnership, aka TRI-C PTN; and all persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiffs' ownership or any cloud on plaintiff's title, Counterclaimants, v. KAREN CRANE and REX KELLER CRANE, wife and husband, and all other persons claim under them to the property described in the counterclaim, Counterdefendants.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

1

KAREN CRANE, Plaintiff-Respondent- Cross Appellant, v. CLESTON GODFREY, KRISTIE GODFREY, TRI-C a Partnership, aka TRI-C PTN; and all persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiffs' ownership or any cloud on plaintiff's title, Defendants-Appellants- Cross Respondents.

CLESTON GODFREY, KRISTIE GODFREY, TRI-C a Partnership, aka TRI-C PTN; and all persons unknown claiming any right, title, estate, lien or interest in the real property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiffs' ownership or any cloud on plaintiff's title, Counterclaimants, v. KAREN CRANE and REX KELLER CRANE, wife and husband, and all other persons claim under them to the property described in the counterclaim, Counterdefendants.

No. 50835

Court of Appeals of Idaho

July 12, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Caribou County.Hon. Mitchell W. Brown, District Judge.

Judgment dismissing Godfrey's counterclaims, affirmed judgment denying Crane's trespass damages affirmed; judgment denying Crane's costs of survey, affirmed; judgment reducing Crane's award of attorney fees and costs, vacated and case remanded.

Hearn Law PLC; John J. Bulger and John B. Ingelstrom, Pocatello for appellants-cross respondents.John J. Bulger, argued.

Merrill & Merrill, Chartered; Kent A. Higgins, Pocatello, for respondent-cross appellant-cross respondent.Kent A. Higgins, argued.

HUSKEY, Judge

Cleston Godfrey appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his counterclaims of adverse possession and boundary by agreement.Karen Crane cross-appeals from the district court's judgment granting, in part, her claim for civil trespass damages; the judgment awarding, but reducing, her award of attorney fees and costs; and the judgment dismissing her claim of costs of survey as reasonable costs associated with investigating the trespass.For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments dismissing Godfrey's counterclaims; denying Crane's claim for trespass damages; and denying Crane's claim for costs of survey.We vacate the judgment granting, but reducing Crane's award of attorney fees, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case involves a boundary dispute between two adjoining property owners: Crane and Godfrey.The dispute involves a coterminous north/south boundary separating the south property (Godfrey property) and the north property (Crane property).A fence runs north/south along the western boundary of the two properties, and its purpose is to keep cattle off the land.Along the western fence line, at a location near the north/south coterminous boundary of the properties is a fencing cross brace.Crane paid for and repaired fencing north of the cross brace and Godfrey did the same to the south of the cross brace, as did their predecessors.

In 1997, Burke Godfrey(Monty) began farming the Godfrey property while leasing the land.In 2000, Monty purchased the Godfrey property and continued to farm the land until he sold it to Cleston Godfrey in 2015.Godfrey continued to farm the land.Crane purchased the Crane property in 2011, farmed it for several years, and then leased it to a tenant who farmed it.

The origin of this dispute began in 2016 after Crane's lessee informed her that the farming done by Godfrey at the coterminous north/south boundary of the properties might be encroaching on her land.Crane testified that her lessee told her the established crop line separating the properties did not match the cross brace which the lessee believed was the boundary marker for the north/south coterminous boundary of the two properties.About three years later, in 2019, Crane contacted Godfrey and informed him that she believed he was farming on some of her property.Crane testified that Godfrey told her it was nothing to be concerned about.A year later, in 2020, Crane contacted Godfrey again and informed him that he was farming on her land, which Godfrey denied.In the spring of 2021, Crane told Godfrey she was going to have the land surveyed, which she did.The survey revealed Godfrey was farming north of his deeded boundary, on Crane's land, by approximately 134 feet at the northeast corner and approximately 125 feet at the northwest corner.Following the completion of the survey, Crane purchased railroad ties and placed them along the surveyed south boundary of her property.Godfrey testified that he, or someone on his behalf, removed the railroad ties.Crane then had the surveyor come back and remark the southeastern corner marker or stake.

Crane filed a complaint and then an amended verified complaint to quiet title to the disputed property, claimed trespass by Godfrey, and requested ejectment and injunctive relief against him.In response, Godfrey filed an answer and counterclaim against Crane, asserting that he was entitled to the land by either: (1) boundary by agreement; or (2) adverse possession.Following a bench trial, the district court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and memorandum decision and order.The district court denied both of Godfrey's counterclaims, granted Crane's quiet title claim, denied Crane's claim for the cost of the initial survey but reimbursed her for the cost related to having the surveyor re-mark the southeastern corner marker, denied Crane's claim for damages related to lost rental profits, and granted Crane's claim for trespass damages related to the farming on her land, awarding her $750 in damages.The district court found Crane was the prevailing party on her trespass action, in part, so she was entitled to attorney fees and costs on the trespass claim to the extent it was separable from the other portions of her trespass claim on which she did not prevail, and separable from her other claims and counterclaims.Finally, the district court found Crane was the prevailing party in the litigation for the purposes of an award of costs.

Crane filed a verified memorandum of costs and attorney fees and, thereafter, a motion for additional costs and fees, and various pleadings in support of the motions.She also filed a motion for reconsideration wherein she asked the district court to reconsider the scope of attorney fees awarded related to the trespass claim and to reconsider the amount of damages related to the trespass claim.The district court held a hearing on the motion for reconsideration and for Crane's attorney fee request.The court issued an order granting, but reducing, Crane's request for attorney fees.The court then granted Crane's motion to reconsider its underlying findings of fact and conclusions of law and issued a memorandum decision and order.Therein, the court made additional findings of fact and amended its conclusions of law.The district court reconsidered, but did not change, its denial of Crane's claim for the cost of the survey.Similarly, the court reconsidered, but did not change, the amount of trespass damages related to lost rental profits.Next, the district court granted Crane's motion for reconsideration as it related to the district court's conclusion that Crane was the prevailing party on her trespass action.

The district court entered an amended judgment, where it: (1) quieted title to Crane for the land in dispute; (2) awarded Crane civil trespass damages against Godfrey; (3) dismissed Godfrey's counterclaims; (4) awarded Crane a reduced amount of attorney fees associated with her civil trespass claim; and (5) awarded Crane costs associated with the prosecution of her complaint and the defense of Godfrey's counterclaims.Godfrey appeals and Crane cross-appeals.

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

Where a trial court sits as a finder of fact without a jury, the court is required to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law.I.R.C.P. 52(a);Estate of Hull v. Williams, 126 Idaho 437, 440, 885 P.2d 1153, 1156(Ct. App.1994).Our review of the trial court's decision is limited to ascertaining whether substantial, competent evidence supports the findings of fact, and whether the trial court correctly applied the law to the facts as found.Borah v. McCandless, 147 Idaho 73, 77, 205 P.3d 1209, 1213(2009);Cummings v. Cummings, 115 Idaho 186, 188, 765 P.2d 697, 699(Ct. App.1988).Thus, we defer to findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous, but we freely review the trial court's conclusions of law reached by applying the facts found to the applicable law.Staggie v. Idaho Falls Consol. Hosps. Inc., 110 Idaho 349, 351, 715 P.2d 1019, 1021(Ct. App.1986).Where there is conflicting evidence, it is the trial court's task to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and to weigh the evidence presented.Desfosses v. Desfosses, 120 Idaho 354, 357, 815 P.2d 1094, 1097(Ct. App.1991).

We will not set aside the trial court's factual findings as clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial and competent, even if conflicting, evidence.Kennedy v. Schneider, 151 Idaho 440, 442, 259 P.3d 586, 588(2011).Evidence is substantial and competent if a reasonable trier of fact would accept that evidence and rely on it to determine whether a disputed point of fact was proven.Hull v. Giesler, 156 Idaho 765, 772, 331 P.3d 507, 514(2014);Hutchison v. Anderson, 130 Idaho 936, 940, 950 P.2d 1275, 1279(Ct. App.1997).

III.ANALYSIS

A.The District Court Did Not Err in Dismissing Godfrey's Counterclaim for Adverse Possession

Godfrey argues the district court erred by denying his counterclaim for adverse possession.Oral claims for adverse possession are governed by Idaho Code § 5-210.^[1]This section requires that the land subject to the adverse possession claim must...