Jim & Maryann Plane Family Trust v. Skinner
| Decision Date | 23 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 41448.,41448. |
| Citation | 157 Idaho 927,342 P.3d 639 |
| Parties | The JIM & MARYANN PLANE FAMILY TRUST, Dated July 23, 2012, Plaintiffs–Appellants, and F.H. Carlton and the F.H. Carlton Family Trust, Plaintiff, v. Jason & Janae SKINNER, husband and wife, Defendants–Respondents, and Doran E. Smith and Judy E. Smith, husband and wife; Kim N. Erickson and Cynthia Erickson, husband and wife; and any and all persons claiming any interest in and to the subject real property located in Sec. 27, T16S, R43E, Boise Meridian, Bear Lake County, State of Idaho, Defendants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Schroeder & Lezamiz Law Offices, LLP, Boise, for appellant. W. Alan Schroeder argued.
Racine Olson Nye Budge & Bailey, Chartered, Pocatello, for respondents. Scott J. Smith argued.
This is an appeal from the decision of the district court for Bear Lake County denying a motion to void a portion of a stipulated judgment. We affirm.
This case concerns three small, adjacent parcels of land in Bear Lake County which line up in a north to south direction and are bordered by State Highway 89 on the west and Bear Lake on the east. In 1998, the northern parcel was owned by Peggy and David Everton, the middle parcel was owned by Annette and Sterling Wallentine, and the southern parcel was owned by Jeanne Macvicar. Historically, Macvicar had accessed her property by a driveway that went through the Everton and Wallentine properties. The driveway left State Highway 89 at the northwestern edge of the Everton parcel, traveled along the western edge of the Everton and Wallentine parcels, and terminated at Macvicar's property.
On November 5, 1998, Macvicar filed a complaint against the Evertons and Wallentines, requesting that the district court declare an easement existed along the western edge of their parcels. On May 30, 2000, the parties filed a Stipulation for Settlement (the Stipulation). On August 22, 2000, the district court accepted the stipulation and entered its Judgment and Decree of Quiet Title (the 2000 Judgment).
The Evertons, the Wallentines, and Macvicar subsequently sold their parcels to the parties to this appeal. Macvicar sold her property to Jim and Maryann Plane, who transferred the property to the Jim and Maryann Plane Family Trust (the Trust). The Planes had actual knowledge of the 2000 Judgment and the Stipulation when they purchased Macvicar's property. Jason and Janae Skinner purchased the parcels owned by the Evertons and Wallentines.
This controversy arose after September 27, 2012, when the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) wrote the Skinners a letter demanding that the Skinners remove their "illegal" driveway. However, the letter also enclosed a permit application for the Skinners to submit which would "allow for the continued use of this currently illegal access."
On April 1, 2013, the Trust filed a motion, pursuant to I.R.C.P. 60(b)(4), requesting that the district court void three sentences of the 2000 Judgment. Paragraph five of the 2000 Judgment provided:
There is granted to Jeanne Macvicar by Annette and Sterling Wallentine, and Peggy and David Everton, their heirs, assigns and successor's [sic] in interest, an easement of approximately ten (10) feet in width for egress and ingress to their property, said easement being located on the west border of said properties. The easement shall not exceed its present width where it adjoins the Everton property. No more [sic] five feet of the Wallentine property shall be used as part of the easement, and only that portion of the Wallentine property as necessary to provide ten (10) feet in width shall be used. the state right of way line. [sic] It is understood that the existing right-of-way leading from the State right of way to the Everton, Wallentine and Macvicar properties may be located, in part, upon the State right-of-way as historically has been so used.
We have emphasized the three sentences that the Trust seeks to have declared void. The Trust argued these provisions are void because the district court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction to address the State's right-of-way because the State was not a party to the litigation. The effect of eliminating these three sentences would be to expand the width of the easement over the Skinners' parcels from a maximum of five feet to ten feet.
On April 18, 2013, the Skinners filed an application with ITD, seeking permission to continue to access the State right-of-way for purposes of a driveway. ITD issued a permit authorizing the Skinners and the Planes to use up to five feet of the State right-of-way.1
The district court denied the Trust's motion on August 13, 2014. The district court reasoned that it could not excise the three sentences from the 2000 Judgment because removing them would be contrary to the parties' predecessors' intent, stating:
Plane Trust's request that this Court void only a portion of the Judgment is merely an impermissible attempt to surgically modify the parties' predecessors' Stipulation and the subsequent Judgment of the Court by deleting language to create an entirely different agreement that was never agreed upon by their predecessors or ratified by the court.... The clear and unambiguous intent of the parties' predecessors was to limit the encroachment upon the Everton's [sic] and Wallentine's [sic] property in precisely the manner articulated in the Stipulation and subsequent Judgment. It would be in direct contravention of the parties' predecessors' intent to modify the Stipulation and subsequent Judgment in a manner requested by Plane Trust.
As the Trust did not seek a declaration that the 2000 Judgment was void in its entirety, the district court did not decide that question. On January 10, 2014, the district court entered its judgment denying the Trust's motion and awarding attorney fees, pursuant to Idaho Code section 12–121, to the Skinners. The Trust timely appealed.
"Whether a judgment is void is a question of law." State, Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Housel, 140 Idaho 96, 100, 90 P.3d 321, 325 (2004). We exercise de novo review over legal questions. Fields v. State, 155 Idaho 532, 534, 314 P.3d 587, 589 (2013).2
"Whether a contract is illegal is a question of law for the court to determine from all the facts and circumstances of each case." Farrell v. Whiteman, 146 Idaho 604, 608, 200 P.3d 1153, 1157 (2009). "Interpreting an unambiguous contract and determining whether there has been a violation of that contract is an issue of law subject to free review." Potlatch Educ. Ass'n v. Potlatch Sch. Dist. No. 285, 148 Idaho 630, 633, 226 P.3d 1277, 1280 (2010).
The award of attorney fees and costs is within the discretion of the district court and reviewed for an abuse of that discretion. Smith v. Washington Cnty., 150 Idaho 388, 392, 247 P.3d 615, 619 (2010) ; Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006).
The issues presented in this appeal include: (1) whether the district court properly determined that I.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) did not permit it to void the three sentences of the 2000 Judgment because the result would be to contravene the intentions of the parties' predecessors in interest; (2) whether the 2000 Judgment was void for lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction; (3) whether the 2000 Judgment was the product of an illegal contract; (4) whether the Trust may demonstrate an easement by necessity on appeal; (5) whether the district court properly exercised its discretion in awarding the Skinners attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code section 12–121 ; and (6) whether either party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal. We address these issues in turn.
The district court determined that it could not "surgically" remove the three sentences from the 2000 Judgment because the result would be contrary to the parties' predecessors' intentions when entering into the Stipulation.
This Court's "primary objective when interpreting a [stipulation] is to discover the mutual intent of the parties at the time the contract is made." Guzman v. Piercy, 155 Idaho 928, 936, 318 P.3d 918, 926 (2014) (quoting Straub v. Smith, 145 Idaho 65, 69, 175 P.3d 754, 758 (2007) ). "If possible, the intent of the parties should be ascertained from the language of the agreement...." Id. (quoting Straub, 145 Idaho at 69, 175 P.3d at 758.).
"If a judgment is only void in part and the void portion can be separated from the balance, relief may be granted to that extent."3 McGrew v. McGrew, 139 Idaho 551, 559, 82 P.3d 833, 841 (2003). A party may not seek to void a judgment in a way that "unilaterally" crafts the judgment in the party's favor. Id. In McGrew, a wife sought to void a portion of a divorce decree that divided community property and debts between the parties. Id. The wife sought to void only that portion of the decree that awarded certain railroad retirement benefits to the husband. Id. This Court held the wife could not void only the retirement award because doing so would allow her to "unilaterally craft" the judgment. Id.
As was the case in McGrew, the Trust seeks to amend the 2000 Judgment in its favor by relocating the easement entirely on the Skinners' property. The 2000 Judgment unambiguously states "[n]o more [sic] five feet of the Wallentine property shall be used as part of the easement."4 The effect of granting the Trust's motion would be to place all ten feet of the easement on the Skinners' property. As in McGrew, the Trust is attempting to "unilaterally craft" the 2000 Judgment by doubling the width of its easement over the Skinners' property. The district court correctly determined that it could not do so.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial