Hall v. Exler
| Decision Date | 09 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48790 |
| Citation | 517 P.3d 96 |
| Parties | Brad H. HALL and Andrea P. Hall, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Travis EXLER, in his individual capacity, and/or as the sole heir of the Estate of Frank Exler and Linda Exler, who may claim an interest in the real property more particularly described as: Lots 4 through 9 inclusive, Block 7, Roberts, Jefferson County, Idaho, and Lots 10, 11, and 12 of Block 7, Roberts, Jefferson County, Idaho. Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
David A. Johnson, P.A., for Appellant. David A. Johnson argued.
Hall Angell & Associates, LLP, for Respondents. Sam L. Angell, Idaho Falls, argued.
This case concerns whether a district court erred in quieting title to real property based on either the lost deed doctrine or judicial estoppel. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In October 1998, Andrea and Brad Hall, together with Linda and Frank Exler, purchased real property in Roberts, Idaho. The Halls owned a two-thirds interest in the property and the Exlers owned one-third. In September 2005, Linda deeded all of her interest in the property to Frank. Frank died intestate in March 2006. Travis Exler, Frank's son and sole heir, was appointed as the personal representative of Frank's estate ("the Estate").
The parties’ narratives regarding the years between Frank's death and the commencement of this action vary in several material respects. Brad testified that he received notice from Jefferson County in 2009 regarding unpaid taxes on the property. Brad then called Travis to discuss the notice. Brad testified that Travis said he was unable to pay the Estate's portion of the overdue taxes. Further, Brad testified the parties reached an agreement by which Travis would deed the property to the Halls if they paid the outstanding tax balance. Within weeks of their conversation, Brad contacted a law firm to prepare a quitclaim deed. He could not recall the attorney who prepared the quitclaim deed or the precise wording of the deed.
After receiving the quitclaim deed, Brad asked his employee, Barry Burke, to deliver the deed to Travis for his signature. Burke testified he dropped off the quitclaim deed with Travis's wife. A few days later, Burke stated that he picked up the deed and verified it was signed by Travis. Burke returned the deed to Brad. Brad testified that the deed was signed by Travis as the personal representative of the Estate. Brad believed he returned the deed to the law firm to have it recorded. Almost ten years later, in 2019, the Halls discovered that the deed had not been recorded. Further, neither Brad nor the law firm that prepared the deed could find the deed. In addition, Brad testified he did not have any documents related to the deed. Thus, Brad requested Travis to re-open probate of the Estate so that a new deed could be executed and recorded. Brad testified he personally delivered the "new" deed to Travis's wife. Travis refused this request and sent Brad a demand letter, claiming the Halls owed him $4,980 as reimbursement for cleanup work he had performed on the property.
In contrast, Travis testified that the parties had two conversations about the property, one in 2007 and another in 2009. Travis testified that in 2007 Travis stated he would transfer the Estate's interest in the property if the Halls reimbursed his costs associated with cleaning up the property. Travis testified that in 2009 the parties also agreed the Halls would take care of cleanup costs and taxes. In any event, Travis stated that he did not transfer ownership of the property to the Halls and was never presented with a quitclaim or personal representative's deed. Further, Travis's wife testified that no one presented her with a deed or any documents in 2009.
Similarly, both Travis and his wife testified they had not been given a quitclaim deed to sign in 2019. Travis's wife testified Brad stopped by their house but did not present her with any documents. She claimed Brad only requested Travis to call him. Additionally, Travis testified he never received a deed from Brad. Travis did not call Brad, but instead sent a letter to the Halls requesting reimbursement of $4,980. Travis testified he has not received reimbursement from the Halls for the cleanup work he performed on the property.
It is undisputed that the Halls have been in sole control, use, and operation of the disputed property since 2009. The Halls have overseen the administration of the lease and maintenance of the property. Travis did not list any profit or loss from the property on his personal taxes. In addition, the Halls paid the overdue taxes on the property, and have made all tax payments on the property since 2009. The Halls and Travis did not communicate between 2009 and 2019.
In June 2010, Travis voluntarily filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Travis did not list the property on his bankruptcy petition. The court trial was the first time the Halls learned this information. Travis testified his attorney at the time told him to not list properties in the Estate's name. However, Travis listed other properties that he inherited from Frank. Travis voluntarily requested that the bankruptcy court dismiss his petition. Further, the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Trustee moved to dismiss based on Travis's failure to list an interest in the property, rental income, and the transfer of an apartment building and 150 cattle. The bankruptcy court dismissed Travis's petition.
After Travis refused the Halls’ request to reopen probate of the Estate, the Halls filed a complaint to quiet title to the property. On October 1, 2020, the district court held a bench trial on the Halls’ quiet title claim. The Halls asserted ownership of the property on the basis of the lost deed, arguing that Travis deeded the property to them in 2009. After the bench trial, the district court issued a memorandum decision and order, quieting title to the disputed property in the Halls based on the lost deed doctrine.
On December 29, 2020, the district court entered a judgment quieting title in the Halls. Travis subsequently filed a notice of appeal on January 8, 2021. In response, the Halls filed a motion for relief from judgment under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure ("I.R.C.P.") 60 on January 21, 2021, seeking to have the district court consider a new claim of judicial estoppel based on Travis's failure to list the property in his bankruptcy petition. This motion is not included in the record. Before the district court heard argument on the Halls’ I.R.C.P. 60 motion, this Court conditionally dismissed Travis's appeal and vacated the district court's judgment for failing to comply with I.R.C.P. 54(a)(1). Almost a week later, the district court held a hearing on the Halls’ I.R.C.P. 60 motion. At the hearing, the Halls acknowledged that the judgment they sought relief from had been vacated and requested the district court to reopen the matter under I.R.C.P. 59(a)(3). The Halls requested the court "to issue a new order citing judicial estoppel as additional alternative grounds for quieting title." The district court granted the Halls’ motion to reopen the case to consider their judicial estoppel claim and stated that its decision regarding the lost deed remained unaffected.
On March 29, 2021, the district court held a bench trial regarding the Halls’ judicial estoppel claim. The Halls presented evidence that Travis had not listed the property in his bankruptcy petition. Travis, in turn, presented evidence that he had voluntarily dismissed his bankruptcy petition. The district court found that Travis tried to gain an advantage in the proceedings by taking a different position before the bankruptcy court than he did during the quiet title proceedings. The district court explained that if Travis's testimony at the court trial on the lost deed was true, he "should have clearly listed the property on his 2010 bankruptcy petitions." Since he failed to do so, the district court held that Travis was judicially estopped from claiming an interest in the property. The district court directed Travis to properly execute a quitclaim deed in favor of the Halls within 14 days of the decision. If Travis failed to execute a deed, the district court directed that a clerk's deed be issued as provided by law. A final corrected judgment was entered on April 18, 2021. Travis timely appealed.
1. Whether the district court erred in quieting title to the property based on the lost deed doctrine?
2. Whether the district court erred in reopening the case to consider a judicial estoppel claim?
3. Whether the Halls are entitled to an award of costs and attorney fees on appeal?
"Following a bench trial, this Court's review is limited to ascertaining whether the evidence supports the findings of fact, and whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law." Wilson v. Mocabee , 167 Idaho 59, 64, 467 P.3d 423, 428 (2020) (quoting Mortensen v. Berian , 163 Idaho 47, 50, 408 P.3d 45, 48 (2017) ). This Court exercises free review over a trial court's conclusions of law. Latvala v. Green Enterprises, Inc. , 168 Idaho 686, 695, 485 P.3d 1129, 1138 (2021). "This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous." Wilson , 167 Idaho at 64, 467 P.3d at 428. Factual findings are not clearly erroneous if they are supported by substantial and competent, although conflicting, evidence. Id. Substantial and competent evidence is evidence "that a reasonable trier of fact could accept and rely upon in making the factual finding challenged on appeal." McCarthy Corp. v. Stark Inv. Grp., LLC , 168 Idaho 893, 902, 489 P.3d 804, 813 (2021) (citing Caldwell Land & Cattle, LLC v. Johnson Thermal Sys., Inc. , 165 Idaho 787, 795, 452 P.3d 809, 817 (2019) ). "Since it is the province of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial