Summary
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment rejecting Dorothy B. McCarty’s claim to real property allegedly conveyed by a quitclaim deed executed by the David and Marvel Benton Trust’s grantors. The court held that Idaho Code section 55-606 does not bar a grantor or successor from challenging a deed’s enforceability, and that the deed’s property description was legally insufficient under Idaho’s statute of frauds. The court also upheld exclusion of extrinsic evidence concerning the grantors’ intent and awarded the Trust costs and attorney fees on appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Idaho Code section 55-606 barred the Trust or its successors from challenging the enforceability of the quitclaim deed.
- Whether the district court properly excluded evidence concerning the Bentons' intent and understanding when they executed the deed.
- Whether the quitclaim deed contained a legally sufficient property description under Idaho's statute of frauds.
- Whether the court should consider McCarty's arguments concerning reformation, interlineation, or a correction deed when those arguments were inadequately presented in the opening brief.
- Whether the trust amendment prohibited David and Marvel from acting alone in executing the revised quitclaim deed.
Holdings
- Idaho Code section 55-606 does not prevent a grantor or successor from challenging the enforceability of a written document purporting to convey real property when the challenge is based on an inadequate property description.
- The district court properly excluded evidence concerning the Bentons' understanding or intent because the sufficiency of a property description is an objective legal question determined from the writing and materials directly referenced in it.
- The original quitclaim deed was unenforceable because its description did not make it possible to identify exactly what property was conveyed without resort to extrinsic evidence.
- The court declined to consider McCarty's arguments concerning reformation, interlineation, and a correction deed because they were presented conclusorily and without supporting authority in the opening brief.
- The Second Amendment unambiguously prohibited David and Marvel from being the only two signatories on transactions involving trust property, regardless of whether either grantor was disabled.
- The Trust was entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121 because McCarty pursued the appeal frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we hold that Idaho Code section 55-606 does not prevent a grantor or a successor from challenging, in a court of law, the enforceability of a written document purporting to convey property on the basis of an inadequate property description.” (151)
“This objective determination is not affected by the understanding or intention of the contracting parties at the time they drafted the property description.” (152)
“Because the description in the Quitclaim Deed does not make it possible to identify exactly what property the seller is conveying to the buyer without resorting to extrinsic evidence, the Quitclaim Deed is unenforceable under Idaho law.” (155)
“The 2010 Amendment unambiguously prohibits David and Marvel from acting alone as signors on behalf of the Trust, and this restriction applies in all circumstances, regardless of whether David or Marvel are disabled.” (156)
Factual background
David and Marvel Benton created a revocable living trust that owned property containing the Benton Engineering office building and surrounding parking areas. In 2010 they executed a quitclaim deed purporting to convey the property to McCarty, but the deed described the property by address, building, and general references to adjacent parking areas rather than by an adequate legal description. After the deed was rejected for recording, McCarty recorded a revised deed with a metes-and-bounds attachment, but the revised deed was not signed by the family co-trustees appointed under an intervening trust amendment.
Procedural history
The Trust filed an action seeking to quiet title to real property purportedly conveyed to McCarty by quitclaim deed and seeking an accounting for use, rents, and profits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court struck evidence concerning the Bentons' intent, held the original deed unenforceable for an inadequate property description, held that the revised deed was unauthorized under the trust amendment, denied reconsideration, and entered summary judgment for the Trust. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed and awarded the Trust costs and attorney fees on appeal.