Nelson v. Evans
| Decision Date | 21 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 47069 |
| Citation | 464 P.3d 301,166 Idaho 815 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Dennis NELSON and Linda Nelson, Petitioners-Appellants. v. Stephanie EVANS and Brian Evans, Respondents. |
Erik P. Smith, PC, Coeur d'Alene, for Appellants. Erik P. Smith argued.
Amendola Doty & Brumley, PLLC, Coeur d'Alene, for Respondents. Jennifer K. Brumley argued.
Dennis and Linda Nelson filed a petition in Kootenai County magistrate court seeking to establish visitation rights with their three granddaughters. The magistrate court dismissed the petition, ruling: (1) the Nelsons lacked standing to file a petition under Idaho Code section 32-719 (); and (2) even if the Nelsons had standing, it would still grant summary judgment in favor of the girls’ parents, Stephanie and Brian Evans, because the Nelsons would be unable to overcome the presumption that fit parents make decisions in their children's best interests. On intermediate appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate court's rulings. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the district court's decision and remand for further proceedings.
Although seemingly a simple question of statutory interpretation, at its essence this case concerns a profound family tragedy that has left three young girls caught in the middle of a legal battle between four people who love them. The Nelsons are the grandparents of three girls, ages thirteen, eleven, and eight ("the granddaughters"). The Nelsons’ daughter, Stephanie Evans, and their son-in-law, Brian Evans, are the girls’ parents.
The evidence submitted by the Nelsons on summary judgment shows that from 2006 to 2015, the Nelsons maintained a close relationship with their granddaughters while living in California.1 The Nelsons were present for the births of all three of their granddaughters, they enjoyed family vacations in exotic locations together, and they visited their granddaughters several times a week. The Nelsons were also actively involved in their granddaughters’ day-to-day lives, from attending swimming lessons, gymnastic lessons, and tennis lessons to hosting weekly playdates and occasional overnight visits. The Nelsons also paid thousands of dollars towards their granddaughters’ future college expenses, which the Evanses admitted to using, at least in part, for their own expenses.
In 2005, prior to the birth of their first daughter, the Evanses wanted to purchase a house in California but had difficulty obtaining the proper financing. As a result, the Nelsons agreed to jointly purchase the house with them. In April 2015, the Evanses informed the Nelsons that they intended to sell the house and move to Idaho. The Nelsons asked that they reconsider because the Nelsons, who had paid off their half of the house debt, would lose a significant amount of money if the house were sold at that time due to market conditions. Over the ensuing month, the Nelsons sought to retain their fifty percent interest in the house either by renting it out or by purchasing the Evanses’ fifty percent interest. Negotiations between the Nelsons and the Evanses became contentious. The Nelsons allege that the Evanses threatened to cut-off visitation with the girls if the Nelsons interfered. After learning the Evanses were already in escrow with a third party, the Nelsons filed a quiet title action and recorded a lis pendens against the house, thereby putting the sale with the third party on hold. The Nelsons and the Evanses eventually reached an agreement whereby the Nelsons agreed to buy out the Evanses’ one-half interest in the house for the same net proceeds that the Evanses would have received from the third party. Nevertheless, the Evanses decided they no longer wanted to maintain a relationship with the Nelsons and requested that they stop all further communications with their granddaughters. The Nelsons attempted to reconcile, all to no avail.
After the Evanses moved to Kootenai County, Idaho, the Nelsons filed a "Petition for Grandparent/Grandchild Visitation" seeking reasonable visitation rights with their granddaughters pursuant to statutory law ( I.C. § 32-719 ) and common law ( Stockwell v. Stockwell , 116 Idaho 297, 775 P.2d 611 (1989) ). The Nelsons also asserted a cause of action on behalf of their granddaughters.
In response, the Evanses filed a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. The Evanses argued that the magistrate court should dismiss the Nelsons’ petition because (1) section 32-719 does not apply outside of divorce, (2) section 32-719 is unconstitutional, and (3) the standards in Idaho Code section 32-1013 have not been met by section 32-719. The Evanses also requested that the magistrate court grant summary judgment in their favor because there is no common law cause of action for grandparent visitation since (1) the Nelsons have not proved that the granddaughters have been harmed by the Evanses, and (2) the relationship between the Nelsons and the granddaughters does not override the fundamental right of parents to decide what is best for their children.
After a hearing on the matter, the magistrate court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law.2 The magistrate court made several findings. First, the court found that the Nelsons did not have a common law cause of action under Stockwell because the Evanses are part of an "intact marital parental relationship" and "there are no allegations that the children have been abandoned, that the natural parents are unfit or that the children have been in the grandparent's custody for an appreciable period of time." Second, the court found that the Nelsons lacked standing to assert a cause of action on behalf of their granddaughters because "the children have no constitutional right to visit or associate with people as they choose." Finally, the court found that the Nelsons did not have standing under section 32-719 because the Evanses "are in an intact marital-parental relationship and there is not now nor has there ever been an action for divorce, child custody, paternity, guardianship, or De Facto Custodian[ship]." The magistrate court also held that, even if it were to find the Nelsons had standing under section 32-719, "the record is devoid of any material facts sufficient to overcome the fundamental constitutional presumption that fit parents make decisions in the best interests of their children." Accordingly, the magistrate court dismissed the Nelsons’ petition for grandparent visitation. The Nelsons filed a motion for reconsideration, which the magistrate court denied.
On May 31, 2018, the Nelsons appealed to the district court. After a hearing on the matter, the district court entered a memorandum opinion affirming the magistrate court's dismissal of the Nelsons’ petition for lack of standing. The district court reiterated that "[ section] 32-719 d[oes] not allow an independent cause of action for grandparent visitation when the parents are in an intact marital-parental relationship and there has never been an action for divorce, child custody, paternity, guardianship or de facto custodian." The district court also affirmed the magistrate court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Evanses because the record was devoid of any facts challenging the presumption that the Evanses, as fit parents, were acting in their children's best interests when they decided to cut all ties with the Nelsons. The Nelsons timely appealed.
The Nelsons ask this Court to review the district court's decision on intermediate appeal. In Pelayo v. Pelayo, we clarified the standard for reviewing such cases:
154 Idaho 855, 858-59, 303 P.3d 214, 217-18 (2013).
Inasmuch as this case concerns an order granting summary judgment, "the standard of review used by this Court is the same standard used by the [lower] court in ruling on the motion." Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 147 Idaho 552, 556, 212 P.3d 982, 986 (2009). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.F.L.P. 505(C). "A genuine issue of material fact exists when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Marek v. Hecla, Ltd., 161 Idaho 211, 220, 384 P.3d 975, 984 (2016) ; see also Houpt v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n , 160 Idaho 181, 186, 370 P.3d 384, 389 (2016) (). "This Court liberally construes the record in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary judgment and draws any reasonable inferences and conclusions in that party's favor." Robison v. Bateman-Hall, Inc., 139 Idaho 207, 209, 76 P.3d 951, 953 (2003). Moreo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arreola v. Scentsy, Inc.
...of the legislative body must be given effect, and the Court need not consider rules of statutory construction. Nelson v. Evans , 166 Idaho 815, 820, 464 P.3d 301, 306 (2020) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).The four relevant statutes under the Worker's Compensation Law to interpreting th......