Stevenson v. Windermere Real Estate/Capital Group, Inc., 152 Idaho 824

275 P.3d 839 (2012) · Supreme Court of Idaho · March 22, 2012 · No. No. 38121

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment dismissing purchasers' unjust enrichment claim against a real estate broker that received a commission from the seller. The court held that the purchasers conferred a benefit on the seller, not directly on the broker, and declined to extend unjust enrichment liability to a creditor receiving transferred funds. The court also upheld attorney fees awarded under Idaho Code section 12-121 and awarded the broker fees and costs on appeal.

Holdings

  1. The Stevensons could not recover from Windermere for unjust enrichment because they did not confer a benefit upon Windermere. They conferred the $38,000 deposit upon Jefferson, and Windermere's later receipt of its commission from Jefferson was not a benefit conferred by the Stevensons.
  2. The court declined to consider the Stevensons' constructive-trust arguments because that theory was not raised in their pleadings and was asserted for the first time on appeal.
  3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding Windermere attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121 because the Stevensons pursued their unjust enrichment claim unreasonably and without foundation.
  4. Windermere's cross-appeal concerning attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(1) was moot because Windermere was entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Stevensons could maintain an unjust enrichment claim against Windermere when the Stevensons conferred the earnest-money benefit on Jefferson, not Windermere, and Jefferson later paid Windermere a contractual commission.
  2. Whether the Stevensons could seek imposition of a constructive trust for the first time on appeal when their complaint asserted only unjust enrichment against Windermere.
  3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding Windermere attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121.
  4. Whether Windermere's cross-appeal concerning attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(1) was moot after the court affirmed the award under section 12-121.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (16)

  • Read v. Harvey, 141 Idaho 497, 499, 112 P.3d 785, 787 (2005)(followed)
  • Sprinkler Irr. Co., Inc. v. John Deere Ins. Co., Inc., 139 Idaho 691, 695-96, 85 P.3d 667, 671-72 (2004)(followed)
  • Vanderford Co., Inc. v. Knudson, 144 Idaho 547, 558, 165 P.3d 261, 272 (2007)(followed)
  • Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. Peiper, 133 Idaho 82, 88, 982 P.2d 917, 923 (1999)(followed)
  • Smith v. Smith, 95 Idaho 477, 484, 511 P.2d 294, 301 (1973)(followed)
  • Hausam v. Schnabl, 126 Idaho 569, 574, 887 P.2d 1076, 1081 (Ct. App. 1994)(distinguished)
  • Beco Const. Co., Inc. v. Bannock Paving Co., Inc., 118 Idaho 463, 797 P.2d 863 (1990)(followed)
  • Harris, Inc. v. Foxhollow Const. & Trucking, Inc., 151 Idaho 761, 264 P.3d 400 (2011)(distinguished)
  • O'Guin v. Bingham County, 139 Idaho 9, 15, 72 P.3d 849, 855 (2003)(followed)
  • Beco Const. Co. v. City of Idaho Falls, 124 Idaho 859, 865, 865 P.2d 950, 956 (1993)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…