Dennett v. Kuenzli
Decision Date | 25 April 2000 |
Docket Number | 24388.,No. 24240,24240 |
Citation | 999 P.2d 884,134 Idaho 229 |
Parties | Mel DENNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent, v. Ronald L. KUENZLI and Ida Marie Kuenzli, husband and wife, Defendants, Respondents-Cross Appellants. Mel Dennett, as an individual, and in his capacity as trustee of the Mel Dennett Living Trust, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald L. Kuenzli and Ida Marie Kuenzli, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Risch, Goss, & Insinger, Boise, for appellant. John R. Insinger argued.
Frank W. Stoppello Attorneys at Law, Boise, for respondents. Frank W. Stoppello argued.
This is a consolidated appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment in two cases. The underlying controversy involves a real estate transaction between Appellant Clarence Mel Dennett (Dennett) and Respondents Ronald and Ida Marie Kuenzli (the Kuenzlis). We affirm.
The facts in this case were succinctly summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows:
Dennett v. Kuenzli, 130 Idaho 21, 24, 936 P.2d 219, 222 (1997) (Dennett I). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's specific performance award. See id. at 32, 936 P.2d at 230. Dennett took possession of the property on May 15, 1997, and an escrow contract was signed by the Kuenzlis on June 10, 1997.
On December 9, 1996, while the Dennett I appeal was pending, Dennett filed a complaint in Ada County Case No. CV OC 9606535D (Dennett II). In Dennett II, Dennett alleged that the Kuenzlis wrongfully retained possession of the property by refusing to honor the option agreement and that Dennett was entitled to damages for the Kuenzlis' wrongful possession. In the summer of 1997, after the Court of Appeals had released its decision, Dennett filed three new motions in Dennett I. The motions requested the following: that the district court consolidate Dennett I with Dennett II; that the district court clarify the Dennett I judgment; and that the district court allow Dennett to amend the Dennett I complaint to include a claim for damages. The district court denied all three post-appeal motions in orders issued on August 4 and September 10, 1997.
On November 10, 1997, the district court in Dennett II granted summary judgment in favor of the Kuenzlis, ruling that Dennett's claim for damages was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. On January 23, 1998, the district court entered a final judgment and an order granting attorney fees and costs to the Kuenzlis.
Dennett appealed. The appeal was eventually consolidated by order of this Court with Docket No. 24788 for purposes of briefing and oral argument.
Dennett presents the following issues on appeal:
In their cross appeal, the Kuenzlis raise the following issue:
E. Whether the district court erred in denying the Kuenzlis' motion and memorandum in support of attorney fees and costs after the Kuenzlis prevailed on all post-remittitur motions filed by Dennett in Dennett I
In an appeal from an order granting summary judgment, this Court's standard of review is the same standard used by the district court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., First Security Bank v. Murphy, 131 Idaho 787, 790, 964 P.2d 654, 657 (1998); Richards v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 131 Idaho 476, 478, 959 P.2d 457, 459 (1998). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Murphy, 131 Idaho at 790, 964 P.2d at 657.
Dennett states in his opening brief: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Kuenzli
...in attorney fees and $55 in costs. The Kuenzlis appealed. This appeal was consolidated by order of this Court with Dennett v. Kuenzli, 134 Idaho 229, 999 P.2d 884 (2000), for purposes of briefing and oral argument. II. ISSUES ON APPEAL The Kuenzlis present the following issues on appeal: A.......
-
PINNACLE ENGINEERS v. Heron Brook, LLC
... ... In U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Kuenzli, 134 Idaho 222, 999 P.2d 877 (2000), the prevailing party, Mr. Dennett, requested attorney fees in the sum of $15,200.00, and the losing party ... ...