McOmber v. Thompson

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MEYER, Justice.
• Citation: McOmber v. Thompson, 572 P.3d 736 (Idaho 2025)
• Docket Number: Docket No. 50980
• Decision Date: 22 July 2025
• Parties: Jonathan & Angela MCOMBER, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Shane & Keri THOMPSON, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.
• topic: Contracts,Civil Procedure,Real Estate

572 P.3d 736

Jonathan & Angela MCOMBER, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.Shane & Keri THOMPSON, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.

Docket No. 50980

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, April 2025 Term.

Opinion Filed: July 22, 2025

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Madison County. Steven W. Boyce, District Judge.

The decisions of the district court are affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Beard St. Clair Gaffney, PA, Idaho Falls, for Appellants Jonathan & Angela McOmber. John M. Avondet argued.

Kirton McConkie, Boise, for Respondents Shane and Keri Thompson. Jon T. Simmons argued.

MEYER, Justice.

This appeal arose after Jonathan McOmber¹ purchased a home that he later realized was in worse condition than he expected when he bought it. After Jonathan and his wife, Angela, began remodeling their new home, they discovered dry rot, mold, and other damage from water intrusion in various parts of the home, which caused them to spend more money on repairs than they anticipated. When ice dams formed on the roof during the winter after they purchased the home, the McOmbers discovered that the roof leaked and was not professionally installed. During a kitchen remodel, Jonathan discovered that the previous owner had rewired parts of the kitchen, in a way that was not up to his standards.

When Jonathan purchased the home, he relied on the sellers’ disclosures about the home’s condition and did not order an independent property inspection. As sellers, Shane and Keri Thompson completed a disclosure form and answered “yes” to questions about damage from water intrusion, with the explanation “drainage problem that was fixed.” They answered “no” in response to questions about the roof leaking. Although the Thompsons indicated on the disclosure form that there had been damage from mold, dry rot, and water intrusion in the home, the McOmbers felt misled. The McOmbers filed an action against the Thompsons for breach of duty to disclose/fraud, common law fraud, and breach of contract, among other claims. They later sought to add a claim for constructive trust, which the district court denied. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in the Thompsons’ favor and awarded attorney fees to the Thompsons based on a provision in the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (“REPSA”). The McOmbers filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied.

The McOmbers now appeal the district court’s decisions to this Court. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On December 31, 2019, Jonathan McOmber purchased a home in Rexburg, Idaho, from Shane and Keri Thompson (the “Property”). As part of the sale, the Thompsons completed a Seller’s Property Condition Disclosure Form (“disclosure form”). The disclosure form contained various questions about the condition of the Property. In a section marked “Moisture & Drainage Conditions,” the Thompsons marked “yes” in response to a question about past water intrusion or moisture related damage to the Property, including inside the home. In the remarks section, they wrote “[d]rainage problem that was fixed.” The Thompsons marked “yes” in response to a question about whether they had remediated, repaired, or fixed any problems on the Property created by water intrusion or mold, and wrote “drainage problem that was fixed” in the remarks section for that question. The Thompsons marked “no” in response to questions about current mold-related problems inside the Property. With respect to questions about the roof, they marked “no” to a question about the roof leaking and indicated the roof had been installed in 2012. The disclosure form did not ask questions about electrical work on the Property. Both parties signed and initialed the disclosure form as part of the closing.

After closing, Jonathan and his wife began an extensive remodel of the Property. During the first winter they owned the Property, in 2020, ice dams formed on the roof and caused water intrusion inside the home. When the McOmbers began remodeling the interior of the home, they discovered mold, dry rot, and other damage from water intrusion in various parts of the home. The McOmbers filed an action against the Thompsons, in which they alleged that the Thompsons failed to disclose property defects before closing and, as a result, committed fraud and breached the REPSA.

During the litigation, Angela McOmber was dismissed as a party plaintiff from the breach of duty to disclose/fraud claim and the breach of contract claim because she was not a party to the REPSA. The McOmbers’ claim for unjust enrichment was dismissed in its entirety. The district court’s decision dismissing Angela McOmber from certain claims and dismissing the unjust enrichment claim were not appealed by the McOmbers.

A. The McOmbers’ motion for leave to amend the complaint.

The McOmbers later sought leave to amend their complaint to add a claim for constructive trust. The district court determined that a constructive trust claim was not applicable under the circumstances of this case and denied the McOmbers’ motion. The McOmbers now appeal the district court’s decision to deny their motion for leave to amend the complaint, arguing that the district court erred when it denied their motion.

B. The motions for summary judgment.

Both parties then moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The district court granted summary judgment in the Thompsons’ favor, finding that Idaho’s Property Condition Disclosure Act (“Disclosure Act”) only requires sellers to disclose known property defects. The district court determined that the Thompsons complied when they completed the disclosure form and answered “yes” to questions related to damage from mold, dry rot, and water intrusion and when they answered “yes” to questions related to remediation or repairs to property damaged by mold, dry rot, and water intrusion. The district court rejected Jonathan’s argument that the Thompsons’ answer stating “drainage problem that was fixed” was misleading because the Thompsons still answered “yes” to questions about water intrusion. The court noted that the Thompsons’ answers on the disclosure form put Jonathan on notice that more investigation may be needed. Because the Thompsons answered “yes” on the disclosure form, the district court determined that Jonathan could not establish a claim for duty to disclose/fraud, and the McOmbers could not establish their common law fraud claim because they could not establish that the Thompsons made a false statement of fact. As the breach of contract claim was also based on allegations that the Thompsons made false or misleading statements on the disclosure form, the disirict court determined summary judgment on that claim was appropriate because Jonathan could not establish that the Thompsons breached the REPSA.

The McOmbers filed a motion for reconsideration combined with a motion to alter or amend the judgment, in which they asked the district court to correct its characterization of the evidence and reverse its decision on summary judgment. The district court did correct an erroneous statement that there was no evidence of ice dams before Jonathan purchased the Property but determined that act did not require reversal.

The McOmbers also objected to the Thompsons’ request for attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3) and the attorney fee provision in the REPSA. They contended that the REPSA merged into the deed and that attorney fees could not be awarded based on the REPSA. The McOmbers also argued that attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3) were not warranted because this case did not involve a commercial transaction. Alternatively, the McOmbers argued that attorney fees were not appropriate because the Thompsons failed to apportion their request between the claims that only involved Jonathan and the one claim that involved both McOmbers. The Thompsons argued that the McOmbers had “triggered” attorney fees under the REPSA and Idaho Code section 12-120(3) because they sought fees under those same sections in their pleadings. They did not address the McOmbers’ apportionment argument. The district court awarded attorney fees to the Thompsons under the attorney fee provision in the REPSA over the McOmbers’ objections, finding that the REPSA provided a basis for an award because the claims in this case were based on the REPSA and both sides had requested fees under the attorney fee provision in the REPSA. The district court did not address the McOmbers’ apportionment argument in its decision.

On appeal, the McOmbers seek reversal of the district court’s summary judgment decision and argue the district court erred when it denied their motion for reconsideration and their motion to disallow attorney fees below. The Thompsons ask this Court to affirm the district court’s decisions and seek an award of attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-120(3) and the attorney fee provision in the REPSA.

II. Issues on Appeal

1. Did the district court err when it denied the McOmbers’ motion to amend the complaint?

2. Did the district court err when it granted the Thompsons’ second motion for summary judgment?

3. Did the district court err when it denied the McOmbers’ motion for reconsideration?

4. Did the district court err when it denied the McOmbers’ motion to disallow attorney fees and costs?

5. Are any of the parties entitled to attorney fees on appeal?

III. Standards of Review

[1, 2] “The denial of a plaintiff’s motion to amend a complaint to add another cause of action is governed by an abuse of discretion standard of review.” Est. of Becker v. Callahan, 140 Idaho 522, 527, 96 P.3d 623, 628 (2004) (quoting Thomas v. Med Ctr. Physicians, P.A., 138 Idaho 200, 210, 61 P.3d 557, 567 (2002)). A district court does not abuse its discretion if it: “(1) correctly perceived the...