King v. Lang, 136 Idaho 905

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants in a dispute concerning whether an easement granted river access to a subsequent purchaser. The court held that the easement was an easement in gross benefiting the original grantors and their immediate families, not an appurtenant easement that passed with the land. The court also upheld dismissal of claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and related relief, and awarded attorney fees on appeal to the Langs and Knapps.

Holdings

1. The 1960 agreement created an easement in gross for the Waggoners and their immediate families, not an appurtenant easement benefiting the property. Because the personal easement did not attach to the land or become assignable, French acquired no right to cross the Lang property to reach the Spokane River.
2. French could not prevail on breach-of-contract or implied-covenant claims against respondents because she had no contract with them.
3. The district court properly granted summary judgment on French's unjust-enrichment claim.
4. Summary judgment for respondents was proper on French's fraud and intentional-misrepresentation claims because French could not establish justifiable reliance.
5. The district court properly dismissed the case with prejudice after granting summary judgment on all claims because summary judgment constituted a final judgment on the merits.
6. The district court properly struck French's punitive-damages claim because she had not obtained permission, after a pretrial hearing, to amend the pleadings to seek punitive damages.
7. The Knapps and Langs were entitled to attorney fees on appeal because French's appeal was frivolous and lacked a substantial legal basis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 1960 easement agreement created an appurtenant easement in favor of the Waggoners' successors or merely an easement in gross benefiting the Waggoners and their immediate families.
2. Whether French could maintain breach-of-contract or implied-covenant claims against respondents absent a contract between French and those respondents.
3. Whether French established or could establish unjust enrichment against respondents.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper on French's intentional-misrepresentation and fraud claims because she could not show justifiable reliance after examining the easement documents.
5. Whether dismissal with prejudice following summary judgment was proper.
6. Whether the district court properly struck French's punitive-damages claim under Idaho Code section 6-1604(2).
7. Whether the Knapps and Langs were entitled to attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-121.

Disposition

affirmed