Help -
Help for Webmasters
« back to results for ""
Below is a cache of http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/bahnmiller.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 32616 RALEEN BAHNMILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 32616 RALEEN BAHNMILLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JERRY BAHNMILLER and FRED
BAHNMILLER,
Defendants-Respondents. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Boise, February 2008 Term
2008 Opinion No. 37
Filed: March 27, 2008
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of
Idaho, in and for Ada County. The Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Pike & Shurtliff, Boise, for appellant. M. Karl Shurtliff argued.
Bauer & French, Boise, for respondents. Randal J. French argued.
EISMANN, Chief Justice. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Prior to the untimely death of Jerry Bahnmiller (Jerry), he was married to Raleen Bahnmiller (Raleen). During their marriage, they purchased a parcel of real property in Boise County with Jerrys father, Fred Bahnmiller (Fred). The sale closed July 20, 1998. The purchase price was $45,000, with a $5,000 down payment and the balance paid by a promissory note requiring monthly and annual payments, with payment in full by September 21, 2003. All three parties signed the note, and it was secured by a deed of trust. Fred purchased a mobile home that was placed on the property, and he paid for labor and materials to erect a building on the property. The building consisted of a shop on the ground floor and an apartment above it. Fred lived in the apartment, and Jerry operated an automotive body shop in the shop. Raleen subsequently filed an action for divorce against Jerry. The primary issue in the action was the community property interest, if any, in the real property. 1 All three parties in this action testified during the divorce trial held on January 2, 2002. On March 5, 2002, the trial court in the divorce action issued a memorandum opinion finding that Fred, Jerry, and Raleen held the real property as tenants in common. The court did not determine their interests in the real property because Fred was not a party to the divorce action. Jerry died before judgment was entered, and the divorce action was ultimately dismissed. On December 6, 2002, Fred filed an action against Jerry and Raleen seeking to quiet his title in the real property. The trial court in that action determined that Fred, Raleen, and Jerry held the real property as tenants in common. It declined to determine their proportionate interests, stating that they must file an action for partition. On February 24, 2004, Raleen filed this action against Jerry and Fred seeking to partition the real property. In July 2004, Jerry died in a motorcycle accident. The case was tried to the court on March 15, 2005, and on May 27, 2005, it issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court re-affirmed that Fred, Raleen, and Jerry 2 held the real property as tenants in common. It ruled that the property could not be partitioned in kind and ordered it sold. At the time of the trial, Fred was eighty-five years of age, was in an assisted living facility, was unable to travel, and had declined mentally. Therefore, he did not testify in person at the trial, nor did he testify by deposition. The district court admitted into evidence his testimony from the divorce trial, 3 along with an exhibit showing payments he had made regarding the real property, including payments on the promissory note, payments for materials and labor used in making the improvements, and payments for real estate taxes. Based upon the evidence presented, the district court found that Fred had paid $86,816.47 in connection with the real property and that Raleen had paid $1,600.00. The court held that they 1 The cotenancy interests of Jerry and Raleen in the real property are presumed to be community property. Worzala v. Worzala, 134 Idaho 615, 618, 7 P.3d 1092, 1095 (2000).
2 No probate had been commenced regarding Jerrys estate, and the record does not reflect who would inherit his interest in the real property. The district court addressed the issues in the case as if Jerry were still alive, and for
convenience so do we.
3 Neither party contended that Idaho Code
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 32616 RALEEN BAHNMILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 32616 RALEEN BAHNMILLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JERRY BAHNMILLER and FRED
BAHNMILLER,
Defendants-Respondents. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Boise, February 2008 Term
2008 Opinion No. 37
Filed: March 27, 2008
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of
Idaho, in and for Ada County. The Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Pike & Shurtliff, Boise, for appellant. M. Karl Shurtliff argued.
Bauer & French, Boise, for respondents. Randal J. French argued.
EISMANN, Chief Justice. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Prior to the untimely death of Jerry Bahnmiller (Jerry), he was married to Raleen Bahnmiller (Raleen). During their marriage, they purchased a parcel of real property in Boise County with Jerrys father, Fred Bahnmiller (Fred). The sale closed July 20, 1998. The purchase price was $45,000, with a $5,000 down payment and the balance paid by a promissory note requiring monthly and annual payments, with payment in full by September 21, 2003. All three parties signed the note, and it was secured by a deed of trust. Fred purchased a mobile home that was placed on the property, and he paid for labor and materials to erect a building on the property. The building consisted of a shop on the ground floor and an apartment above it. Fred lived in the apartment, and Jerry operated an automotive body shop in the shop. Raleen subsequently filed an action for divorce against Jerry. The primary issue in the action was the community property interest, if any, in the real property. 1 All three parties in this action testified during the divorce trial held on January 2, 2002. On March 5, 2002, the trial court in the divorce action issued a memorandum opinion finding that Fred, Jerry, and Raleen held the real property as tenants in common. The court did not determine their interests in the real property because Fred was not a party to the divorce action. Jerry died before judgment was entered, and the divorce action was ultimately dismissed. On December 6, 2002, Fred filed an action against Jerry and Raleen seeking to quiet his title in the real property. The trial court in that action determined that Fred, Raleen, and Jerry held the real property as tenants in common. It declined to determine their proportionate interests, stating that they must file an action for partition. On February 24, 2004, Raleen filed this action against Jerry and Fred seeking to partition the real property. In July 2004, Jerry died in a motorcycle accident. The case was tried to the court on March 15, 2005, and on May 27, 2005, it issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court re-affirmed that Fred, Raleen, and Jerry 2 held the real property as tenants in common. It ruled that the property could not be partitioned in kind and ordered it sold. At the time of the trial, Fred was eighty-five years of age, was in an assisted living facility, was unable to travel, and had declined mentally. Therefore, he did not testify in person at the trial, nor did he testify by deposition. The district court admitted into evidence his testimony from the divorce trial, 3 along with an exhibit showing payments he had made regarding the real property, including payments on the promissory note, payments for materials and labor used in making the improvements, and payments for real estate taxes. Based upon the evidence presented, the district court found that Fred had paid $86,816.47 in connection with the real property and that Raleen had paid $1,600.00. The court held that they 1 The cotenancy interests of Jerry and Raleen in the real property are presumed to be community property. Worzala v. Worzala, 134 Idaho 615, 618, 7 P.3d 1092, 1095 (2000).
2 No probate had been commenced regarding Jerrys estate, and the record does not reflect who would inherit his interest in the real property. The district court addressed the issues in the case as if Jerry were still alive, and for
convenience so do we.
3 Neither party contended that Idaho Code
download IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 32616 RALEEN ...
