Wayne L. Kidwell

This case involved a dispute between an employee, Shannon Bakker, and her employer, Thunder Spring-Wareham, LLC, over entitlement to a sales commission for marketing a condominium unit. The employment contract provided for a monthly salary plus a 0.25% override on successful closings, but expressly conditioned the commission on the employee's term of employment. After Bakker's employment ended on April 6, 2002, and escrow closed on April 15, 2002, Thunder Spring refused payment, leading to claims for contractual wages, statutory wages under the Idaho Wage Claim Act, and quantum meruit. The district court granted summary judgment to Thunder Spring, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the contract was unambiguous in requiring employment at closing, that the condition did not violate public policy or render the agreement unconscionable, and that the express contract barred the quantum meruit claim.

labor & employment

In Page v. McCain Foods, Inc., a workers' compensation claimant sought benefits after injuring her knee when she stood up from a chair at work, an event her employer learned about through an oral phone call but for which no written notice was provided. The Idaho Industrial Commission denied the claim, ruling that the incident did not qualify as an accident under the law and that the lack of proper notice prejudiced the employer. The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding that the employer's actual knowledge of the event satisfied notice requirements because it allowed an opportunity to investigate, and that an injury from rising from a seated position can constitute an accident when it arises out of and in the course of employment. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on unresolved issues, including causation and benefits, while directing that any attorney fee determination be made by the Commission.

labor & employment

This case involved a breach of contract claim by Clear Lakes Trout Co. against Clear Springs Foods, Inc., both operators of fish hatcheries with adjudicated water rights from springs in the Snake River Canyon. The dispute centered on whether Springs violated the Safe Harbor provision of an Interim Stipulated Agreement—negotiated amid drought-related water shortages—by requesting curtailment of Lakes' junior surface water rights to satisfy its own senior rights. The district court granted summary judgment to Springs, and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Agreement's protections applied only to junior ground water users who supplied replacement water in exchange for immunity from calls by senior surface users, not to disputes between surface water right holders like Lakes and Springs. The court reasoned that the Agreement's structure and purpose, including specific commitments by ground water users, demonstrated an intent to exclude protection for junior surface rights holders.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a foreclosure action on undeveloped land and common areas within a planned condominium development along Coeur d'Alene Lake in Idaho, where the lender (West Wood Investments) sought to enforce a deed of trust after the developer defaulted, and lot owners claimed superior interests based on the developer's prior representations that certain property would remain common area. The district court granted foreclosure but held that equitable servitudes had been created and would run with the property. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the developer's recorded plans, representations to purchasers, and the overall circumstances of the project established enforceable equitable servitudes under Idaho law that were not extinguished by the foreclosure. The court distinguished prior precedent involving mere security interests without such representations or development context.

property

This case involved a dispute over a contract for the sale of landlocked real property, where the seller, the Hazel Blessinger Family Trust, was required to obtain and convey an easement for access as a condition of the sale. The buyers, the Denglers, sued for breach of contract after the Trust sold the property to another party, claiming the agreement remained enforceable. The district court granted summary judgment to the Trust, finding that the failure to obtain the easement excused the seller's performance because it was a condition precedent that could not be satisfied despite reasonable efforts. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the contract terms made the sale contingent on acquiring the easement on reasonable terms from neighboring landowners, which proved impossible.

property

The case concerned the Scaggs' attempt to recover attorney fees from their insurer, Mutual of Enumclaw, after an arbitration award on an underinsured motorist claim under Idaho Code § 41-1839. The district court initially denied fees in an October 10, 2002 order, applying precedent that required the insured to have no option but to file suit. After the Idaho Supreme Court issued Martin v. State Farm, which overruled that precedent, the district court granted a second motion and retroactively awarded fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the October 10 order was a final judgment and the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify it via reconsideration or Rule 60(b) after the 42-day appeal period under I.A.R. 14 had expired.

procedurebusiness & regulatory