Demoney-Hendrickson v. Larsen
| Docket Number | Docket No. 49108 |
| Decision Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Citation | 171 Idaho 917,527 P.3d 520 |
| Parties | Krystal K. DEMONEY-HENDRICKSON, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Cynthia K. Juker, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Respondent, v. Redginald R. LARSEN, an individual, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Appellant, and The Estate of Cynthia K. Juker, Third Party Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Wright Brothers Law Office, PLLC, Twin Falls, for Appellant. Kyle E. Bastian argued.
Vaughn Fisher and Christopher Brown, Boise, for Respondents. Vaughn Fisher argued.
This case concerns an action for the partition of real property. Redginald Larsen appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration following its grant of summary judgment brought by Krystal Demoney-Hendrickson and the Estate of Cynthia K. Juker. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
In 1994, Larsen, who was then single, purchased unimproved property in Twin Falls County (the "Rock Garden Property") as the sole owner. In 2014, Larsen and Cynthia Juker entered into a romantic relationship. Despite participating in an unofficial ceremony resembling a wedding in 2018, the two were never legally married. Shortly after their relationship began, Larsen and Juker moved into a home owned by Juker (the "Wrangler Property").
(Capitalization altered; bold in original.) The deed was executed on October 4, 2019.
About a month later, Juker unexpectedly passed away. Her daughter, Krystal Demoney-Hendrickson, was appointed personal representative of Juker's estate (collectively referred to as "the Estate"). At the time of Juker's passing, the home on the Rock Garden Property was still under construction. Larsen continued living on the Wrangler Property until construction on the Rock Garden Property finished in April 2020, after which he moved into the new home. Initially, the relationship between Larsen and Demoney-Hendrickson was amicable following Juker's passing, but things began to unravel shortly after Larsen moved into the new home.
According to Larsen, he and Juker entered into two oral agreements around the time they sought financing for the home construction. Larsen explains that, under these agreements, Juker was to sell the Wrangler Property and use the proceeds to pay down the First Federal loan. In the meantime, Larsen agreed he would be solely responsible for financing the home construction out of his separate funds. In accordance with this agreement, Larsen states he reimbursed Juker for any expenses she incurred related to the home construction until the Wrangler Property could be sold.
In contrast, the Estate maintains Juker died intestate and never indicated her wishes for what was to become of her personal and real property in the event of her death. The Estate also disputes whether Larsen was solely responsible for funding the Rock Garden Property construction. Once construction was completed, Larsen occupied the Rock Garden Property. The Estate sold the Wrangler Property, but none of the proceeds from that sale were applied toward the First Federal loan.
Friction between the parties over ownership of the Rock Garden Property ultimately led the Estate to sue Larsen in the summer of 2020. The Estate asserted causes of action for partition by sale and conversion, and later added claims for ouster and unjust enrichment. Larsen asserted a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that he owned 100% of the Rock Garden Property.
Both the Estate and Larsen moved for summary judgment on their claims for partition by sale and declaratory judgment. The Estate argued that it owned 50% of the Rock Garden Property by virtue of the warranty deed to Juker. Larsen argued that he owned 100% of the Rock Garden Property by virtue of the parties’ agreement and because he reimbursed Juker for all expenses she paid for the property.
The district court granted the Estate's motion and denied Larsen's motion. The district court found the deed "to be clear, unambiguous, and controlling" and concluded it need not consider any evidence beyond the language of the deed to determine ownership of the Rock Garden Property. Relying exclusively on the deed, the district court found that Larsen and the Estate each owned an undivided, one-half interest in the Rock Garden Property as a matter of law. Following its determination of the parties’ respective interests, the district court concluded the Rock Garden Property must be partitioned by sale as a matter of law. The district court also found that the Rock Garden Property consisted of 5.05 acres and contained a single residence and that it would not be possible to physically partition the property without great prejudice to the parties. The district court therefore ordered the partition of the property by sale.
Larsen filed a motion for reconsideration of the district court's summary judgment order. Larsen argued that the district court's decision was in error because extrinsic evidence is admissible in a partition action to establish the parties’ ownership interests and, therefore, the district court erred in relying exclusively on the language of the deed to determine the parties’ respective interests in the property. Larsen argued that the district court should have also considered the parties’ respective contributions to the property when making its decision.
The district court denied Larsen's motion, largely relying on the same line of reasoning from its original order. However, the district court did clarify that its original order made only two determinations: (1) that Larsen and the Estate each owned an undivided, one-half interest in the Rock Garden Property, and (2) that partition by sale must occur as a matter of law because partition in kind would result in great prejudice. The district court stated that "[w]ho paid what with respect to the construction of the residence is disputed and thus presents a genuine issue of material fact not ripe for summary judgment." Thus, the district court concluded that issues related to contributions and expenditures would be resolved when the proceeds from the sale of the Rock Garden Property were divided.
Following the denial of his motion for reconsideration, Larsen moved for permission from the district court to appeal its order under Idaho Appellate Rule 12. The district court denied the motion. Larsen then moved this Court for permission to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider, which this Court granted.
The parties dispute the appropriate standard of review for this appeal. Larsen argues this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court in deciding the motion for reconsideration. Since the district court was reconsidering its order on the cross-motions for summary judgment, Larsen asserts this Court should apply the summary judgment standard. The Estate asserts that a clear error standard of review applies since the district court's order pertained to partitioning real estate.
"[W]hen reviewing a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the lower court in deciding the motion for reconsideration." Fragnella v. Petrovich , 153 Idaho 266, 276, 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012). Thus, "when reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for reconsideration following the grant of summary judgment, this Court must determine whether the evidence presented a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment." Fragnella , 153 Idaho at 276, 281 P.3d at 113. "If there is no genuine issue of material fact, only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review." Neeser v. Inland Empire Paper Co. , 170 Idaho 692, 696, 516 P.3d 562, 566 (2022) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Larsen has appealed the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. Therefore, we apply the summary judgment standard in our review of the district court's denial of Larsen's motion.
Larsen asserts that the district court erred by not considering extrinsic evidence to determine his and the Estate's respective ownership interests in the Rock Garden Property. He argues that a presumption arises in partition actions that can be rebutted through extrinsic evidence and asserts that this Court's decision in Wilson v. Mocabee , 167 Idaho 59, 467 P.3d 423 (2020), supports his position. Thus, Larsen maintains that the district court erred by relying exclusively on the language of the deed to determine his and the Estate's respective interests in the Rock Garden Property. The Estate maintains the district court applied the correct standard.
The district court applied the standard from Hoch v. Vance , 155...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank v. Dean
... ... only a question of law remains, over which this Court ... exercises free review." Demoney-Hendrickson v ... Larsen , 171 Idaho 917, 921, 527 P.3d 520, 524 (2023) ... (citation omitted) ... IV ... ANALYSIS ... ...