Summary
This Idaho Supreme Court opinion addresses a breach of warranty of title claim arising from a residential real estate transaction and a subsequent boundary line dispute between neighbors. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the sellers, holding that extrinsic evidence was inadmissible to vary the terms of an unambiguous warranty deed under the merger doctrine. The court also affirmed the district court's decision declining to award attorney fees to the sellers.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Did the district court err when it admitted the declarations of Fred Martino and Brent Featherston?
- Did the district court err when it dismissed the Roses’ breach of warranty claim on summary judgment?
- Did the district court err in denying the Martinos’ motion for attorney fees?
- Is either party entitled to attorney fees on appeal?
Holdings
- The district court erred in admitting the declarations because extrinsic/parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of an unambiguous warranty deed.
- The district court erred in dismissing the breach‑of‑warranty claim; the warranty deed guarantees title and the covenant of seisin, and the Martinos breached those covenants by not owning the entire described parcel.
- The district court did not err in denying the Martinos’ request for attorney fees; the action did not involve a commercial transaction and the purchase‑and‑sale agreement contained no fee provision.
- Neither party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal; the prevailing party (the Roses) is awarded costs only.
Key quotations
“The warranty deed plainly states that the Martinos are the owners “in fee simple of said premises,” and covenants that they “will warrant and defend the same from all claims whatsoever.”” (at ___)
Factual background
The Roses purchased the Rose Property from the Martinos by warranty deed that omitted a previously recorded Boundary Line Agreement (BLA). The neighboring Melizas later sued the Roses to quiet title over the strip of land defined by the BLA. The Martinos refused to defend the Roses, prompting the Roses to sue the Martinos for breach of warranty of title and breach of the covenant of seisin.
Procedural history
The district court dismissed the Roses’ breach‑of‑warranty claim on summary judgment and denied the Martinos’ request for attorney fees. Both parties appealed.
Remand instructions
Further proceedings consistent with this order.