Rockefeller v. Grabow, 139 Idaho 538

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed a remand proceeding concerning the forfeiture of a real estate developer-broker's development fee after he breached fiduciary duties to the property owners. The court affirmed the district court's award of 87.5% of the development fee and attorney fees, holding that the district court properly exercised its discretion and had jurisdiction to award fees on remand. The court also awarded the respondent attorney fees and costs on appeal.

Holdings

1. The district court complied with the remand order because the prior general jury verdict established only that at least one fiduciary-duty theory had been proven; it did not establish which particular alleged breach occurred. The district court therefore could determine whether the alleged misrepresentation occurred before or after completion of a divisible portion of the contract.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Rockefeller 87.5% of his development fee. The court properly exercised its equitable discretion after finding that the subdivision was 85% to 90% complete when the fiduciary breach occurred.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by calculating the development fee without deducting expenses associated with selling subdivision parcels.
4. The district court had jurisdiction to award attorney fees on remand because the attorney-fee issue was a subsidiary issue fairly comprised within the remanded development-fee issue.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion by treating Rockefeller as the prevailing party on his development-fee claim and awarding him attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3), while denying fees to the Grabows on their tort counterclaim.
6. Rockefeller was entitled to a reasonable attorney fee on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-120(3) because he prevailed on his commercial-transaction claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court complied with the Idaho Supreme Court's remand order when it determined the timing and manner of Rockefeller's fiduciary breach.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding Rockefeller 87.5% of his development fee rather than requiring complete forfeiture.
3. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to award Rockefeller attorney fees on remand.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in determining that Rockefeller was the prevailing party on his development-fee claim and was entitled to attorney fees.
5. Whether Rockefeller was entitled to attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-120(3).

Disposition

affirmed