L & W Supply Corporation d.b.a. Gem State Acoustical & Drywall Supply v. The Chartrand Family Trust; Total American, Inc.; and Does I Through Z

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court held that a materials supplier was too remote from the property owner to assert a materialman's lien under Idaho Code section 45-501 because the intermediary supplier was neither a subcontractor nor an agent of the owner. The court affirmed summary judgment invalidating the lien, upheld the denial of attorney fees, and reversed the denial of taxable costs to the prevailing property owner. The case was remanded to determine the amount of costs, with costs awarded to the respondent on appeal and no appellate attorney fees.

Holdings

1. A supplier that is too remote from the property owner and that furnishes materials to a supplier rather than to an owner, agent, general contractor, or qualifying subcontractor cannot utilize Idaho's materialman's-lien statute. Total American was neither a subcontractor nor an agent of Chartrand, so Gem State's lien was invalid.
2. The open account doctrine is a defense that may bar a lien when labor or materials are furnished in reliance exclusively on the requesting contractor's general credit; it does not independently establish a lien when the doctrine is inapplicable.
3. As the prevailing party, Chartrand was entitled as a matter of right to recover allowable trial costs under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).
4. Chartrand was not entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code section 45-513 or section 12-120(1) or (3).
5. Chartrand was not entitled to attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-120(1) for the same reasons fees were unavailable at trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Gem State was sufficiently connected to the owner or general contractor under Idaho Code section 45-501 to assert a materialman's lien.
2. Whether the open account doctrine independently supported Gem State's lien claim.
3. Whether the Court needed to decide whether Total American's tender of payment extinguished an otherwise valid lien.
4. Whether Chartrand was the prevailing party for purposes of trial costs and attorney fees.
5. Whether Chartrand was entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code sections 45-513 or 12-120.
6. Whether Chartrand was entitled to attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-120(1).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded