Summary
The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed an appeal arising from a dispute over the location of a prescriptive easement and alleged trespass involving adjoining properties. The Court affirmed the judgment locating the easement and the punitive damages award against the Mortensens, declining to reach certain arguments that were inadequately briefed or not preserved. It vacated the award of attorney fees under Idaho Code § 6-202 and remanded for apportionment of those fees.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court should review Marti Mortensen's challenge to the district court's location of the prescriptive easement when her opening brief contained no argument or authority and attempted to adopt arguments from other appellants.
- Whether the district court erred in reinstating the punitive-damages award against the Mortensens.
- Whether Marti Mortensen preserved the argument that a divorced spouse cannot be liable for punitive damages assessed because of her former husband's conduct.
- Whether attorney fees awarded under Idaho Code section 6-202 had to be apportioned to fees reasonably incurred in prosecuting the statutory trespass action.
- Whether the Court should review the argument that the district judge should have recused himself when the appellant offered no cogent argument or authority.
Holdings
- The Court will not address a claimed error concerning the location of a prescriptive easement when the appellant's opening brief presents no legal issue, authority, or argument on that claim and improperly attempts to adopt arguments not available for response by the appellee.
- The district court did not err in reinstating the $150,000 punitive-damages award against Vernon and Marti Mortensen.
- The Court will not address the merits of Marti Mortensen's argument that she could not be liable for punitive damages assessed because of her former husband's conduct because she failed to preserve the issue for appeal.
- Attorney fees awarded under Idaho Code section 6-202 must be limited to fees reasonably incurred in prosecuting the statutory trespass action and therefore must be apportioned.
- The Court will not address the recusal argument because it was unsupported by cogent argument or authority.
Key quotations
“Therefore, under I.C. § 6-202, a prevailing plaintiff may only be awarded attorney fees “reasonably incurred in prosecuting the trespass action upon which he prevailed.”” (11)
“We affirm the district court’s location of Appellants’ prescriptive easement and its award of punitive damages against the Mortensens. We vacate the district court’s judgment to the extent that it awarded attorney fees to the Akers because the district court failed to apportion the fee award. Accordingly, we remand this matter back to the district court for the sole purpose of apportionment of attorney fees.” (13)
Factual background
The parties' properties were connected by an access road running from Millsap Loop Road across Government Lot 2 and through the southwest corner of Parcel B, which was owned by the Akers, to Parcel A, owned by the Mortensens and Whites. The Mortensens and Whites sought to use and widen the road for a planned housing development, while the Akers blocked portions of the route, leading to confrontations, alleged property damage, and trespass. The district court found repeated intentional misconduct by Vernon Mortensen, including threats and bulldozer damage, and awarded compensatory, trebled, and punitive damages. Marti Mortensen separately challenged the punitive-damages award and the fee award after her divorce from Vernon.
Procedural history
The Akers sued for trespass, quiet title, and negligence arising from a disputed access road and easement. After a bench trial, the district court quieted title to a disputed triangle, recognized an easement through Government Lot 2, awarded damages and attorney fees, and imposed punitive damages. In Akers v. D.L. White Construction, Inc., 142 Idaho 293, 127 P.3d 196 (2005), the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed some rulings and remanded for additional fact finding concerning a prescriptive easement through Parcel B. In Akers v. Mortensen, 147 Idaho 39, 205 P.3d 1175 (2009), the Court again remanded for precise fact finding regarding the easement's location and vacated the damages and fee awards. On the second remand, the district court located the easement, reinstated the damages and punitive damages, entered judgment, and awarded attorney fees without apportionment. The Supreme Court affirmed the easement location and punitive damages, vacated the attorney-fee award, and remanded solely for apportionment.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded solely for the district court to apportion the attorney fees awarded under Idaho Code section 6-202, limiting the award to fees reasonably incurred in prosecuting the statutory trespass action.