{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:idaho-52242-2026-05-05", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:idaho-52242-2026-05-05)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-18", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:efda2f", "proof": "sha256:f94bfabba18f6176cc6f755d6fc00ac719734c51c7921753a95b9ac2efdc9aa5", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:idaho-52242-2026-05-05", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "1", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Docket No. 52242", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "THE ESTATE OF LAUREL ANN KALINSKI", "paragraphs": [ "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8" ] }, { "title": "MURPHY LAW OFFICE, PLLC, an Idaho", "paragraphs": [ "para_10" ] }, { "title": "MICHAELINA BRADY MURPHY, a real", "paragraphs": [ "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36" ] }, { "title": "Boise, February 2026 Term", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Opinion Filed: May 5, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada", "paragraphs": [ "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46" ] }, { "title": "This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Murphy Law", "paragraphs": [ "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53" ] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [ "para_55", "para_56" ] }, { "title": "I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND", "paragraphs": [ "para_58" ] }, { "title": "Laurel Kalinski passed away in August 2019, leaving her children, Crystal and Nicholas", "paragraphs": [ "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69" ] }, { "title": "After the Jeep was repossessed by the lienholder, Crystal and Nicholas were referred to", "paragraphs": [ "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74" ] }, { "title": "Murphy’s fees, each paying half. Crystal and Nicholas completed a one-page intake form at", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Murphy’s office. When they met with Murphy, Crystal and Nicholas explained their agreement", "paragraphs": [ "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81" ] }, { "title": "On July 15, 2020, Crystal sent Murphy an email itemizing the expenses she incurred in", "paragraphs": [ "para_83", "para_84" ] }, { "title": "3", "paragraphs": [ "para_86", "para_87" ] }, { "title": "My brother knows some information about the next steps but not all. I’ve", "paragraphs": [ "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93" ] }, { "title": "I’m happy to answer any questions or discuss anything further before", "paragraphs": [ "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99" ] }, { "title": "On September 30, 2020, Crystal sent Murphy an email outlining her proposal for valuing", "paragraphs": [ "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107" ] }, { "title": "Crystal and Nicholas met with Murphy on October 1, 2020, to discuss the Estate. At the", "paragraphs": [ "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114" ] }, { "title": "Crystal told Murphy that Nicholas admitted they would never agree on what’s fair. Murphy", "paragraphs": [ "para_116" ] }, { "title": "Property] and he gets half with no deductions.”", "paragraphs": [ "para_118", "para_119" ] }, { "title": "4", "paragraphs": [ "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126" ] }, { "title": "Crystal responded, “I’m not actually going to have to sell, am [I]?” Murphy answered:", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Let’s see how aggressive they are. I am going to buy time by getting", "paragraphs": [ "para_129", "para_130", "para_131" ] }, { "title": "A member of Murphy’s staff also responded:", "paragraphs": [ "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137" ] }, { "title": "However, on May 20, 2021, Crystal informed Murphy that she believed she would qualify for", "paragraphs": [ "para_139" ] }, { "title": "On July 9, 2021, Crystal emailed Murphy, “I’ve been talking with [the lender] about", "paragraphs": [ "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144" ] }, { "title": "On July 15, 2021, Kulchak emailed Murphy: “On behalf of my client, a request was made", "paragraphs": [ "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154" ] }, { "title": "5", "paragraphs": [ "para_156", "para_157" ] }, { "title": "So, if the market value is $425,000.00 and approximately $114,000.00 will", "paragraphs": [ "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162" ] }, { "title": "Your client has agreed to a credit of $40,000.00 which means his sister would pay", "paragraphs": [ "para_164", "para_165" ] }, { "title": "This is just to illustrate what I believe the parties have discussed. There are also", "paragraphs": [ "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173" ] }, { "title": "Keep going and get it done. Nick does not have to be involved in that.”", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "On July 26, 2021, Crystal refinanced the Property for $193,000. Acting as personal", "paragraphs": [ "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180" ] }, { "title": "On August 2, 2021, Crystal emailed Murphy stating that she was unaware that the market", "paragraphs": [ "para_182" ] }, { "title": "I met with Nick Saturday night. He told me that you guys emailed his", "paragraphs": [ "para_184" ] }, { "title": "You never discussed any of that with me and I certainly never agreed to those", "paragraphs": [ "para_186" ] }, { "title": "I have told you every step of the way what was going on with the refinancing", "paragraphs": [ "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191" ] }, { "title": "I also don’t understand why you would tell me to go have a conversation", "paragraphs": [ "para_193" ] }, { "title": "6", "paragraphs": [ "para_195" ] }, { "title": "Murphy responded:", "paragraphs": [ "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202" ] }, { "title": "Even at fair market value — once you take out the mortgage, take our 1/2", "paragraphs": [ "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207" ] }, { "title": "On August 16, 2021, Kulchak asked Murphy whether the Property had been refinanced in", "paragraphs": [ "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212" ] }, { "title": "I have to admit that I am frustrated that you took it upon yourself to", "paragraphs": [ "para_214", "para_215" ] }, { "title": "We always talked about you paying fair market value. I am trying to decide whether", "paragraphs": [ "para_217" ] }, { "title": "Crystal, as personal representative, terminated Murphy and Murphy moved to withdraw as the", "paragraphs": [ "para_219", "para_220" ] }, { "title": "In April 2022, Nicholas, through counsel, filed a separate lawsuit against Crystal", "paragraphs": [ "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229" ] }, { "title": "7", "paragraphs": [ "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234" ] }, { "title": "In March 2023, the Estate, through Crystal’s personal counsel, Smith, filed a complaint", "paragraphs": [ "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240" ] }, { "title": "Under the prayer for relief, the Estate requested “compensatory, general, and special", "paragraphs": [ "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256" ] }, { "title": "The Estate opposed the motion to strike its expert witness disclosure, contending that", "paragraphs": [ "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261" ] }, { "title": "8", "paragraphs": [ "para_263", "para_264", "para_265" ] }, { "title": "Seven days after the deadline to respond to Murphy’s motion to dismiss and motion for", "paragraphs": [ "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273" ] }, { "title": "After a hearing on the parties’ pending motions, the court issued an order (1) denying the", "paragraphs": [ "para_275" ] }, { "title": "Murphy’s motion for summary judgment, (2) granting Murphy’s motion to strike the Estate’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283" ] }, { "title": "On the Estate’s negligence claim, the court explained that “to resist a motion for summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290" ] }, { "title": "Next, the court granted summary judgment on the Estate’s claims for breach of contract", "paragraphs": [ "para_292" ] }, { "title": "9", "paragraphs": [ "para_294" ] }, { "title": "(2012), the court explained that", "paragraphs": [ "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303" ] }, { "title": "Finally, the court granted summary judgment on the Estate’s ICPA claim because that", "paragraphs": [ "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318" ] }, { "title": "II. ISSUES ON APPEAL", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1. Did the district court err when it granted summary judgment to Murphy on the Estate’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_321" ] }, { "title": "2. Did the district court err when it granted summary judgment to Murphy on the Estate’s", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ICPA cause of action?", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "3. Is either party entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal?", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "10", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard the", "paragraphs": [ "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334" ] }, { "title": "Summary judgment is proper, “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to", "paragraphs": [ "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340" ] }, { "title": "To oppose summary judgment, the party must support the assertion that a material fact is", "paragraphs": [ "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349" ] }, { "title": "IV. ANALYSIS", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The Estate does not appeal the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment on its", "paragraphs": [ "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356" ] }, { "title": "11", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A. The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Estate’s unjust", "paragraphs": [ "para_359" ] }, { "title": "The district court granted summary judgment after concluding that the unjust enrichment", "paragraphs": [ "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366" ] }, { "title": "1. The Estate’s argument that its unjust enrichment claim is an equitable claim for fee", "paragraphs": [ "para_368" ] }, { "title": "Murphy argues that the Estate waived appellate review of its unjust enrichment claim", "paragraphs": [ "para_370", "para_371" ] }, { "title": "This Court has repeatedly held that “a party preserves an issue for appeal by [either]", "paragraphs": [ "para_373", "para_374", "para_375" ] }, { "title": "Murphy emphasizes the district court’s statement that the Estate “offers no argument or", "paragraphs": [ "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389" ] }, { "title": "12", "paragraphs": [ "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401" ] }, { "title": "2. Unjust enrichment, as alleged by the Estate in this case, cannot proceed as an", "paragraphs": [ "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420" ] }, { "title": "The parties do not dispute the existence of an attorney-client relationship between the", "paragraphs": [ "para_422" ] }, { "title": "13", "paragraphs": [ "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431" ] }, { "title": "These allegations are not unique to the unjust enrichment claim; rather, they are the same", "paragraphs": [ "para_433", "para_434" ] }, { "title": "We have consistently held that, while legal malpractice actions combine elements of both", "paragraphs": [ "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445" ] }, { "title": "Here, Murphy’s duty to the Estate arose from the attorney-client relationship. See id. at", "paragraphs": [ "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454" ] }, { "title": "14", "paragraphs": [ "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463" ] }, { "title": "Unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty are distinct causes of action with separate", "paragraphs": [ "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472" ] }, { "title": "Moreover, the holding in Parkinson is narrow. We explained that", "paragraphs": [ "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488" ] }, { "title": "15", "paragraphs": [ "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495" ] }, { "title": "The son appealed, challenging the district court’s unjust enrichment decision. Id. This", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Court noted a procedural concern with the trial court’s premature dismissal of the unjust", "paragraphs": [ "para_498", "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507" ] }, { "title": "Thomas is inapposite. There, the dispute concerned the enforceability of an express", "paragraphs": [ "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517" ] }, { "title": "The Estate has not established any element of unjust enrichment independent of its", "paragraphs": [ "para_519", "para_520" ] }, { "title": "16", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "B. The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Estate’s ICPA cause of", "paragraphs": [ "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526", "para_527", "para_528", "para_529", "para_530" ] }, { "title": "The Estate contends that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard, that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_532", "para_533", "para_534" ] }, { "title": "The ICPA declares unlawful certain “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive", "paragraphs": [ "para_536", "para_537", "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541", "para_542", "para_543", "para_544" ] }, { "title": "Section 48-608(1) provides the cause of action and remedies for a consumer. To establish", "paragraphs": [ "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552" ] }, { "title": "17", "paragraphs": [ "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561", "para_562", "para_563", "para_564", "para_565", "para_566", "para_567" ] }, { "title": "Murphy acknowledges that attorneys are not exempt from ICPA claims. The holding in", "paragraphs": [ "para_569", "para_570", "para_571" ] }, { "title": "The Estate’s complaint alleged violations of Idaho Code section 48-603(5), (9), (13), and", "paragraphs": [ "para_573", "para_574", "para_575", "para_576", "para_577", "para_578", "para_579", "para_580", "para_581", "para_582", "para_583", "para_584", "para_585" ] }, { "title": "18", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We agree with the district court. At summary judgment, the Estate bore the burden of", "paragraphs": [ "para_588", "para_589", "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597", "para_598", "para_599", "para_600", "para_601", "para_602", "para_603", "para_604", "para_605" ] }, { "title": "Idaho Code section 48-603(17) declares it unlawful to engage “in any act or practice that", "paragraphs": [ "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611", "para_612", "para_613", "para_614", "para_615", "para_616", "para_617" ] }, { "title": "19", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Those allegations do not establish an ICPA claim. The ICPA targets consumer-facing", "paragraphs": [ "para_620", "para_621", "para_622", "para_623", "para_624", "para_625", "para_626", "para_627", "para_628", "para_629", "para_630", "para_631" ] }, { "title": "The conduct alleged by the Estate concerns Murphy’s performance as counsel within an", "paragraphs": [ "para_633", "para_634", "para_635", "para_636", "para_637", "para_638", "para_639" ] }, { "title": "In summary, the Estate failed to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact", "paragraphs": [ "para_641", "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645" ] }, { "title": "Murphy requests attorney fees on appeal under Rule 41 of the Idaho Appellate Rules and", "paragraphs": [ "para_647", "para_648", "para_649" ] }, { "title": "20", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-121 are not awarded to a prevailing", "paragraphs": [ "para_652", "para_653", "para_654", "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658" ] }, { "title": "Because we affirm the district court’s decision, Murphy is the prevailing party. In the", "paragraphs": [ "para_660", "para_661", "para_662", "para_663", "para_664" ] }, { "title": "As the prevailing party, Murphy is entitled to recover costs on appeal under Idaho", "paragraphs": [ "para_666" ] }, { "title": "V. CONCLUSION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We affirm the district court’s judgment in Murphy’s favor. Costs on appeal are awarded to", "paragraphs": [ "para_669", "para_670", "para_671" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "1", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "Docket No. 52242", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "THE ESTATE OF LAUREL ANN KALINSKI", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "through the Personal Representative", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "CRYSTAL MARIE KALINSKI,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "MURPHY LAW OFFICE, PLLC, an Idaho", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "professional limited liability company;", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "MICHAELINA BRADY MURPHY, a real", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "person,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Defendants-Respondents,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "and", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "DOES 1 through 10,", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Defendants.", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": ")", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "Boise, February 2026 Term", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "Opinion Filed: May 5, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "County. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "The judgment of the district court is affirmed.", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "Smith Horras, P.A., Boise, for Appellants. William L. Smith argued.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "Duke Evett, PLLC, Boise, for Respondents. Emma C. Nowacki argued.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "_____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "MEYER, Justice.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Murphy Law", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "Office, PLLC, and Michaelina B. Murphy (Murphy) on all claims brought by the Estate of Laurel", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "A. Kalinski, through its personal representative, Crystal M. Proctor, formerly known as Crystal M.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "Kalinski (the Estate). The Estate alleged causes of action for negligence or legal malpractice,", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "breach of contract, violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (ICPA), and unjust enrichment.", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "On appeal, the Estate challenges only the dismissal of the unjust enrichment and ICPA violation", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "claims. We affirm because unjust enrichment is not a cause of action independent from the Estate’s", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "legal malpractice claim since they were both based on the same alleged misconduct. In addition,", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "the Estate failed to show evidence of unfair or deceptive acts as required by the ICPA.", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "A. Factual Background.", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "Laurel Kalinski passed away in August 2019, leaving her children, Crystal and Nicholas", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "Kalinski, as her sole heirs. The Estate consisted of only two assets: a Jeep and a house in Nampa,", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "Idaho (the Property), where Crystal shared a home with her mother. Laurel’s final months were", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "shadowed by stage 4 cancer, medical bills, and increasing debt on her car and house. Despite that,", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Crystal and Nicholas received “significant life insurance proceeds and retirement accounts”", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "outside of the Estate, which were “[j]ust under a half million dollars.”", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "Laurel’s Will named Crystal as the personal representative of the Estate, directed that the", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "Property and the vehicle be sold, the debt on each paid, and the residue used to pay other debts", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "before splitting whatever remained equally between Crystal and Nicholas. To navigate probate,", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "Crystal, as personal representative, initially hired the attorney who drafted Laurel’s Will to advise", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "and represent the Estate.", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "After the Jeep was repossessed by the lienholder, Crystal and Nicholas were referred to", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "Murphy, another attorney, by an accounting firm. On November 14, 2019, Murphy met with them", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "for a consultation. Before meeting with Murphy, Nicholas agreed that Crystal could remain on the", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Property, refinance it, and pay him half the equity upon the Estate’s settlement. To avoid selling", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "the Property, the siblings agreed to use their insurance proceeds to pay Laurel’s debts and", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "Murphy’s fees, each paying half. Crystal and Nicholas completed a one-page intake form at", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "Murphy’s office. When they met with Murphy, Crystal and Nicholas explained their agreement", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "with Murphy, but they did not mention the exact terms, such as the Property’s value and the amount", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "Crystal would owe Nicholas. Crystal, as personal representative, then hired Murphy as counsel for", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "the Estate, who filed a substitution of counsel to replace the previous attorney of record in the", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "probate proceedings. Once retained, Murphy sent letters and notices to creditors, including the", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "Idaho State Tax Commission, a credit card company, and Laurel’s medical providers.", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "On July 15, 2020, Crystal sent Murphy an email itemizing the expenses she incurred in", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "connection with the Estate. Crystal attached a broker’s valuation of the Property, a list of repairs", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "to get the Property in selling condition, and a list of “expenses for the estate.” Those expenses", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "included carpet cleaning, plumbing, tree removal, kitchen blinds, and surgery for their mother’s", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "dog. In that email, Crystal also wrote:", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "My brother knows some information about the next steps but not all. I’ve", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "kind of played dumb with him to avoid conflict and told him that I needed to get a", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "list of expenses for the estate together and that you had a formula to figure out the", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "fair payment for him for the house. He’s separating from his wife and has leaned", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "on me for support. He owes me $11,000 (which he knows, agreed to, and I have in", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "text from him) that is going to come out of his payout from the house.", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "I’m happy to answer any questions or discuss anything further before", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "inviting him in to be part of the closing. I want to keep the relationship with my", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "brother in the state it’s in and as long as he doesn’t think I’m going behind his back", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "at all, we should be fine. I don’t think he’ll give much of a fight when it comes to", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "the payout when it’s explained during closing.", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "Crystal claims that this email excerpt was a privileged, confidential communication.", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "On September 30, 2020, Crystal sent Murphy an email outlining her proposal for valuing", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "the Property. Both Crystal and Nicholas had expended the funds from Laurel’s non-probate assets.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "Crystal suggested using the Property’s assessed tax value of $230,000 at the time her mother", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "passed away. From this amount, she suggested deducting the Estate’s total debts and expenses of", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "$130,616.13. After these deductions, the remaining value totaled $80,983.87. Crystal then", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "suggested dividing the amount by two, resulting in each party receiving $40,491.94. She stated she", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "would deduct $12,000 from Nicholas’ share to settle the debts he owed Crystal. This would result", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "in a payout of $28,491.94 to him.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "Crystal and Nicholas met with Murphy on October 1, 2020, to discuss the Estate. At the", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "meeting, Murphy shared Crystal’s July 15, 2020, email with Nicholas, who was angered by it. The", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "siblings did not agree on the Property’s value. Nicholas contended that he was entitled to half the", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "value of the Property based on fair market value at the time Crystal refinanced the Property “minus", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "the mortgage and estate debts split in two.” Crystal maintained that the proper valuation was based", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "on the Property’s 2019 tax assessment at the time of Laurel’s death, which was $230,000.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "Afterward, Nicholas stopped paying his share of Murphy’s attorney fees. By the end of October,", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "Crystal told Murphy that Nicholas admitted they would never agree on what’s fair. Murphy", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "replied, “I hate to say I was right, but [what would be] [f]air to him would be for you to sell [the", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "Property] and he gets half with no deductions.”", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "Nicholas hired an attorney, Mike Kulchak, who sent a letter to Murphy on November 4,", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "2020, stating that Nicholas did not accept Crystal’s $28,000 offer for his interest in the Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "Nicholas wanted the Property sold and the proceeds divided as directed in the Will. Kulchak", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "requested an accounting and inventory of the Estate and informed Murphy that it was not possible", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "for Crystal to retain the Property unless she had sufficient funds to pay Nicholas the proceeds from", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "any sale. Kulchak also disputed the existence of any previous agreement between the siblings", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "regarding the Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "Murphy forwarded Crystal the email communications between Murphy and Kulchak.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "Crystal responded, “I’m not actually going to have to sell, am [I]?” Murphy answered:", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "Let’s see how aggressive they are. I am going to buy time by getting", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "together the [i]nventory and the accounting . . . . I would suggest, however, that you", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "work closely with [the lender] to make sure that the moment you qualify, we can", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "have you buying the home.", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "A member of Murphy’s staff also responded:", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "[Y]es, you wouldn’t have to sell the house if you were able to pay the debt on it and", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "be able to split the “value of the house” as instructed in the Will (however that gets", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "done). It’s the determining of the value, etc., that has become the issue, as you", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "know.", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "By March 2021, despite her efforts to do so, Crystal was unable to refinance the Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "However, on May 20, 2021, Crystal informed Murphy that she believed she would qualify for", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "financing by the end of June.", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "On July 9, 2021, Crystal emailed Murphy, “I’ve been talking with [the lender] about", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "refinancing and we’re thinking we can be refied [sic] by the end of the month! We finally have our", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "ducks in a row. I think I’m planning on sticking with the 40K minus 1/2 of the dues for you guys.”", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "Murphy asked, “Have you and Nick agreed to a price for the house?” and Crystal replied, “Not", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "officially. He had agreed to 40K at one point but wanted the money right then.”", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "On July 15, 2021, Kulchak emailed Murphy: “On behalf of my client, a request was made", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "that the home be sold and the proceeds be divided. Please advise as to your client’s position. If", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "necessary we will file a motion for the home to be sold with the court.” Murphy responded,", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "“[A]ccording to my client, your client and my client have reached a few agreements and she is in", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "the process of receiving lending to buy your client out. Is this not your understanding?” In response", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "to Kulchak’s question, “What is your understanding of the ‘agreements?’” Murphy explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "[T]he house is worth around $425,000.00. There is a $105,000 mortgage and", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "another FHA second for $8,695.89 for unpaid payments. Your client has authorized", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "a $40,000.00 credit to his sister for the amounts he has borrowed against his", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "inheritance from her or for costs she put into the [E]state to preserve the assets, pay", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "debts etc. (only as to his ½ interest). Crystal paid the Idaho Tax Commission lien", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "($8,105.34). I think there is still an outstanding St. Luke’s claim ($4,211.83).", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "So, if the market value is $425,000.00 and approximately $114,000.00 will", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "[be] paid at closing to cover the mortgages, this will give the Estate approximately", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "$311,000.00 after closing (no real estate taxes, closing costs, etc are included). Of", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "that $4211.83 must be paid to St. Lukes. So approximately $306,000 will go to the", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "heirs. This means that each heir would be entitled to approximately $153,000.00.", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "Your client has agreed to a credit of $40,000.00 which means his sister would pay", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "all encumbrances and her brother the balance of his one half.", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "This is very rough and I cannot guarantee any of these numbers are correct.", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "This is just to illustrate what I believe the parties have discussed. There are also", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "outstanding attorney fees that need to be paid. There may be other Estate expenses", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "that may exist that I have not determined during my quick review to become", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "reacquainted with the file.", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "On July 20, 2021, Crystal asked Murphy if she should continue with the refinance plan,", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "asking, “Does [Nicholas] have to be involved with any of it? Do I still have to provide a breakdown", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "of everything in the meantime or can we just continue and finish the refinance, close the [E]state", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "and set up the trust?” Murphy’s legal assistant responded, “Do not stop the refinancing process.", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "Keep going and get it done. Nick does not have to be involved in that.”", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "On July 26, 2021, Crystal refinanced the Property for $193,000. Acting as personal", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "representative, she transferred the title to herself and her new husband, Tanner Proctor. The", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "amount refinanced covered Laurel’s current loan, closing costs and fees, FHA loan payoff,", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "Nicholas’ projected payout of $40,000, and some unpaid attorney fees incurred by the Estate.", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "The loan proceeds also helped pay for Crystal’s wedding. The deed to Crystal was recorded on", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "July 30, 2021.", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "On August 2, 2021, Crystal emailed Murphy stating that she was unaware that the market", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "value of the house would be based on the value in 2021:", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "I met with Nick Saturday night. He told me that you guys emailed his", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "attorney and told them that I agreed to basing the house off of market value now.", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "You never discussed any of that with me and I certainly never agreed to those", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "numbers. Why would you do that?", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "I have told you every step of the way what was going on with the refinancing", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "and what numbers I was going off of (being the numbers you recommended in the", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "beginning of house value at time of death). During the refinance I had been planning", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "on giving Nick 40k minus attorney fees and the FHA loan. I don’t understand why", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "you would tell him I agreed to anything different.", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "I also don’t understand why you would tell me to go have a conversation", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "with him and try to come to an agreement when you had already told them I agreed", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "to something we didn’t even discuss.", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "Murphy responded:", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "I was providing an example. Frankly, if he wants to use fair market value,", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "then you should be able to have additional deductions. I also want to be clear with", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "you, he has every right to demand fair market value. If the market had fallen you", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "would have wanted the reduced fair market value. The delay was partly you getting", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "a job and finding lending. The delay was not entirely him. I am very concerned that", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "you want to place a lower number on him for the value of the property.", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "Even at fair market value — once you take out the mortgage, take our 1/2", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "of what you paid and take out what he owes you, it is not a great deal. Tell him fair", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "market value and then deduct away.", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "Three days later, Murphy emailed, “Crystal what did the two of you decide? Did you make any", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "progress?” Crystal stated, “No, we haven’t reached any agreements yet.”", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "On August 16, 2021, Kulchak asked Murphy whether the Property had been refinanced in", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "Crystal’s name. Murphy confirmed that Crystal refinanced the Property, explaining, “Other than", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "recommending a lender many, many months ago, I was not involved in the process. It was my", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "understanding that our clients were going to sit down and work this out between themselves. Are", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "you hearing differently?” Murphy also forwarded Kulchak’s email to Crystal, adding:", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "I have to admit that I am frustrated that you took it upon yourself to", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "determine what you think your brother was owed, refinanced the house without", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "getting an agreement with your brother and then putting the house in your name.", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "We always talked about you paying fair market value. I am trying to decide whether", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "I should withdraw from this matter.", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "Crystal, as personal representative, terminated Murphy and Murphy moved to withdraw as the", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "Estate’s attorney in September 2021. Murphy’s total cost for her legal services was $3,970.89.", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "Attorney Steven Rausch replaced Murphy as counsel for the Estate.", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "In April 2022, Nicholas, through counsel, filed a separate lawsuit against Crystal", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "(individually and as personal representative), her husband, and her lending company, to set aside", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "the refinance and transfer of the Property. Crystal hired William Smith to defend her in her", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "individual capacity.", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "On November 21, 2022, Crystal, her husband, and Nicholas signed a settlement agreement.", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "The agreement stated that Nicholas, Crystal, and Tanner “suffered damages in the form of legal", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "cost[s] and attorney fees,” which the Estate was required to pay, subject to a reduction “by a", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "proportionate share of the attorney fees and costs incurred in prosecuting the claims against", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "Murphy.” Nicholas assigned “all his claims against the Estate, Crystal, and Tanner to the Estate.”", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "Nicholas and Crystal, in her individual capacity, assigned “all their claims against the Estate and", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "its’ [sic] agent Murphy to the Estate” and agreed to assist the Estate “in the preparation and", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "prosecution” of a case against Murphy. Crystal paid Nicholas and retained the Property.", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "B. Procedural History.", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "In March 2023, the Estate, through Crystal’s personal counsel, Smith, filed a complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "and demand for a jury trial. The Estate alleged that “Murphy as a lawyer licensed to practice law", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "in Idaho” owed duties tied to the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, including competence,", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "diligence, communication, confidentiality, candid advice, and truthfulness to third parties, all of", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "which the Estate alleged Murphy breached. The Estate asserted four causes of action: (1)", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "negligence, (2) breach of agreement, (3) violation of the ICPA, and (4) unjust enrichment.", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "Under the prayer for relief, the Estate requested “compensatory, general, and special", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "damages, all in amounts to be proven at trial,” including (1) actual damages; (2) costs and attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "fees pursuant to the sibling’s settlement agreement; (3) post-judgment interest; (4) post-judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "fees; (5) the personal representative’s past “earnings lost as a result of the breach of duty”; (6) the", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "“reasonable value of necessary services provided by another the breach of duty in doing things for", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "the [personal representative], which, except for the breach of the duty, the [Estate] would ordinarily", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "have performed and the present cash value of such services reasonably certain to be required in", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "the future”; and (7) ICPA remedies.", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "On February 12, 2024, the Estate disclosed attorney Steve Rausch as its sole expert witness.", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "The disclosure included an exhibit summarizing Rausch’s opinions. Murphy subsequently filed", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "several motions and supporting documents, including a motion to strike the Estate’s expert witness", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "disclosure, a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment, and the declaration of counsel,", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "Keely E. Duke, in support of the motion for summary judgment and the motion to strike. Murphy’s", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "motion to strike argued that Rausch’s opinions should be stricken as conclusory and lacking in", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "foundation because he failed to specify the applicable standard of care and only relied on the Idaho", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "Rules of Professional Conduct as the standard of care.", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "The Estate opposed the motion to strike its expert witness disclosure, contending that", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "Rausch was qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education, and", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "that there was “a valid foundational basis for his expert opinions.” The Estate conceded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "breach of contract cause of action should be dismissed but opposed Murphy’s motion to dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "and motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. William Smith filed a declaration of", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "counsel in support of the Estate’s opposition that attached exhibits of numerous email", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "correspondences and the Estate’s intake form completed by Crystal at the initial consultation with", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "Murphy.", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "Seven days after the deadline to respond to Murphy’s motion to dismiss and motion for", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "summary judgment, the Estate filed a motion for leave to file a late affidavit of its expert witness.", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "The Estate argued that the delay caused no prejudice because Rausch’s opinions were already", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "disclosed and remained unchanged. Murphy objected to the motion, arguing that (1) Murphy could", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "not know what Rausch would swear to until after the Estate submitted the affidavit, (2) the late", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "filing left them no opportunity to respond with an expert affidavit, and (3) the Estate failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "provide the affidavit by the required deadline. Murphy also filed a motion to strike portions of", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "Smith’s declaration.", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "After a hearing on the parties’ pending motions, the court issued an order (1) denying the", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "Estate’s motion for consideration of Rausch’s late-filed affidavit submitted in opposition to", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "Murphy’s motion for summary judgment, (2) granting Murphy’s motion to strike the Estate’s", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "expert witness disclosure, (3) granting Murphy’s motion to strike portions of Smith’s declaration,", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "and (4) granting Murphy’s motion for summary judgment. The district court granted Murphy’s", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "motion to strike the Estate’s expert witness disclosure, including Rausch’s affidavit, because the", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "affidavit was untimely filed and, even if it had been timely, the expert’s opinions lacked foundation", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "and were speculative. The district court granted Murphy’s motion to strike portions of Smith’s", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "declaration, noting that the Estate did not oppose or “specifically address the motion . . . .”", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "The district court granted summary judgment on all four of the Estate’s causes of action.", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "On the Estate’s negligence claim, the court explained that “to resist a motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "judgment in a legal malpractice case,” a plaintiff must provide an expert affidavit explaining both", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "how the attorney’s conduct fell below the standard of care and how that breach proximately caused", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "damages. It further explained that an expert affidavit is required because those issues are ordinarily", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "outside lay jurors’ common knowledge. Since the court did not consider the Estate’s only expert", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "affidavit, the court determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the elements of", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "breach and causation, and Murphy was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "Next, the court granted summary judgment on the Estate’s claims for breach of contract", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "and unjust enrichment after recognizing that “[l]egal malpractice actions are an amalgam of tort", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "and contract theories.” Citing Bishop v. Owens, 152 Idaho 616, 620–21, 272 P.3d 1247, 1251–52", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "(2012), the court explained that", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "under the abatement rule, breach of duty is an action in tort, not contract; that is,", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "unless an attorney foolhardily contracts with his client guaranteeing a specific", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "outcome in the litigation or provides for a higher standard of care in the contract,", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "he is held to the standard of care expected of an attorney. And breach of that duty", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "is a tort.", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "The court determined that breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims were not independent", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "causes of action but instead were based on the same factual allegations as the legal malpractice", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "Finally, the court granted summary judgment on the Estate’s ICPA claim because that", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "claim was “subsumed” by the legal malpractice claim. In addition, the court determined that the", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "Estate did not present evidence of any unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable conduct by Murphy", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "that would satisfy the ICPA’s requirements. The court explained that the Estate’s causes of action", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "were limited to the quality of legal representation, not to misrepresentation of services. The district", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "court entered judgment in favor of Murphy and dismissed all claims alleged by the Estate with", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "prejudice.", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "The Estate timely filed a notice of appeal. Shortly after filing its appeal, the Estate also", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "filed a motion for reconsideration with the district court. The court denied the motion, emphasizing", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "that the court had decided all the Estate’s claims on a motion for summary judgment under Rule", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "56 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, not a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Ultimately,", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "the court declined to consider any of the Estate’s untimely affidavits filed in opposition to", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "Murphy’s motion for summary judgment and concluded that the Estate did not present new, timely,", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "or admissible evidence, nor did the Estate identify any legal errors to warrant a different outcome", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "on the court’s previous decision.", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "II. ISSUES ON APPEAL", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "1. Did the district court err when it granted summary judgment to Murphy on the Estate’s", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "unjust enrichment cause of action?", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "2. Did the district court err when it granted summary judgment to Murphy on the Estate’s", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "ICPA cause of action?", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "3. Is either party entitled to an award of attorney fees on appeal?", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "10", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard the", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "district court employed in its summary judgment rulings. Bronco Elite Arts & Athletics, LLC v.", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "106 Garden City, LLC, 172 Idaho 506, 513, 534 P.3d 558, 565 (2023) (quoting Stonebrook Constr.,", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "LLC v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 152 Idaho 927, 929, 277 P.3d 374, 376 (2012)). “A moving party", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "must support its assertion by citing particular materials in the record or by showing the ‘materials", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "cited do not establish the . . . presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "admissible evidence to support the fact[s].’” Owen v. Smith, 168 Idaho 633, 640, 485 P.3d 129,", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "136 (2021) (alterations in original) (quoting I.R.C.P. 56(c)(1)(B)).", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "Summary judgment is proper, “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” I.R.C.P. 56(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "“Summary judgment is improper ‘if reasonable persons could reach differing conclusions or draw", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "conflicting inferences from the evidence presented.’” Owen, 168 Idaho at 641, 485 P.3d at 137", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "(quoting Trumble v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Idaho, 166 Idaho 132, 141, 456 P.3d 201, 210", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "(2019)).", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "To oppose summary judgment, the party must support the assertion that a material fact is", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "genuinely disputed by either citing to “depositions, documents, electronically stored information,", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . . , admissions, interrogatory answers, or other", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "materials[,]” or by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "genuine dispute . . . .” I.R.C.P. 56(c)(1). However, courts “may consider other materials in the", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "record.” I.R.C.P. 56(c)(3). “All facts and inferences from the record will be viewed in favor of the", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "nonmoving party to determine whether the motion should be granted.” Schriver v. Raptosh, 174", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "Idaho 498, 506, 557 P.3d 398, 406 (2024) (quoting E. Lizard Butte Water Corp. v. Howell, 122", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "Idaho 679, 681, 837 P.2d 805, 807 (1992)).", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "IV. ANALYSIS", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "The Estate does not appeal the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment on its", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "claims for negligence or breach of agreement. Nor does the Estate challenge the court’s decisions", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "to grant Murphy’s motions to strike or to deny the Estate’s motion to reconsider. We express no", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "opinion regarding those decisions. The Estate appeals the district court’s order granting summary", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "judgment and dismissing its unjust enrichment and ICPA causes of action. Each cause of action is", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "addressed in turn.", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "11", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "A. The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Estate’s unjust", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "enrichment cause of action.", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "The district court granted summary judgment after concluding that the unjust enrichment", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "claim was “not an independent cause of action distinguishable from [the Estate’s] legal malpractice", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "claim.” On appeal, the Estate contends that unjust enrichment is an independent equitable theory", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "of recovery distinct from its legal malpractice cause of action. Murphy responds that the claim", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "does not constitute an independent cause of action because it is “based on the same allegations of", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "fact related to . . . Murphy’s alleged negligent representation of the Estate.” Before turning to the", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "merits of the Estate’s appeal, we first address the threshold preservation issue raised by Murphy.", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "1. The Estate’s argument that its unjust enrichment claim is an equitable claim for fee", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "disgorgement, distinct from its legal malpractice claim, was preserved for appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "Murphy argues that the Estate waived appellate review of its unjust enrichment claim", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "because the Estate failed to meaningfully oppose or identify disputed facts necessary to overcome", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "summary judgment on the claim before the district court.", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "This Court has repeatedly held that “a party preserves an issue for appeal by [either]", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "properly presenting the issue with argument and authority to the trial court below,” or by obtaining", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "an adverse ruling from the trial court. See, e.g., State v. Miramontes, 170 Idaho 920, 924–25, 517", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "P.3d 849, 853–54 (2022). “Both are not required.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "Murphy emphasizes the district court’s statement that the Estate “offers no argument or", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "legal authority disputing or opposing [Murphy’s] argument that the unjust enrichment claim has", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "no independent basis separate from legal malpractice.” The record belies that statement. Murphy", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "argued on summary judgment that unjust enrichment “is not an independent cause of action from", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "the Estate’s legal malpractice claim” because the former claim relied on the same facts as the latter", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "claim. The Estate explained in its response brief that it had “sufficiently stated claims” including", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "unjust enrichment and that the “claims are not subsumed by a legal malpractice theory, . . . but", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "rather stand as independent causes of action arising from distinct wrongful acts and omissions.”", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "During the hearing on the motion, the district court asked the Estate to explain why it was", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "conceding breach of contract but not unjust enrichment. The court asked if the unjust enrichment", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "theory was “really just pleading in the alternative to [a] breach of a contract claim? And if so, if", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "the breach of contract claim goes away, then what would be the legal justification for keep doing", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "[sic] the unjust enrichment claim”? In response, the Estate explained that unjust enrichment is", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "“basically” a breach of fiduciary duty. The Estate described the claim as “an equitable theory”", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "12", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "requiring disgorgement of fees, which are an alternative to a legal malpractice recovery under", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "Parkinson v. Bevis, 165 Idaho 599, 448 P.3d 1027 (2019). The court inquired further, “Oh, so the", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "unjust enrichment was plead[ed] as an alternative to the malpractice issue and not the breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "contract issue?” The Estate clarified that unjust enrichment “was [pleaded] as the alternative to all", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "four just because they all -- they all seemed a little bit duplicative, but it’s a weird little animal the", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "way she suffered the damage [at] issue there.” This exchange shows that the district court", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "recognized the Estate’s position that the unjust enrichment cause of action was an independent", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "claim for fee disgorgement tied to Parkinson. Moreover, although the district court recognized the", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "position, it was unpersuaded by the Estate’s argument, concluding that the Estate’s “breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "contract and unjust enrichment claims” did not provide “an independent cause of action under the", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "facts of [the] case.” Therefore, we conclude that the Estate preserved this issue for appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "2. Unjust enrichment, as alleged by the Estate in this case, cannot proceed as an", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "independent cause of action.", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "The Estate alleged unjust enrichment as an alternative cause of action to legal malpractice.", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "The question is whether the unjust enrichment theory states a claim for relief independent from", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "the malpractice theory, or whether it simply relabels legal malpractice.", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "Unjust enrichment is “a non-contractual obligation that is . . . treated procedurally as if it", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "were a contract[.]” Hull v. Giesler, 156 Idaho 765, 777, 331 P.3d 507, 519 (2014) (citation", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "omitted). It is not a contract “but an obligation imposed by law” to bring “about justice and equity", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "without reference to the intent of the agreement of the parties, and, in some cases, in spite of an", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "agreement between the parties.” Pickering v. Sanchez, 173 Idaho 478, 489, 544 P.3d 135, 146", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "(2024) (citation omitted). To prevail, the plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) a benefit was", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff; (2) the defendant appreciated the benefit; and (3) it", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "would be inequitable for the defendant to accept the benefit without payment of the value of that", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "benefit. Id. Critically, unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy that is “subordinate to contractual", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "remedies.” Gilbert v. Progressive Nw. Ins. Co., ___ Idaho ___, ___, 577 P.3d 519, 534 (2025)", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "(quoting Asher v. McMillan, 169 Idaho 701, 707, 503 P.3d 172, 178 (2021)). When an “express", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "agreement is enforceable,” courts will not apply “the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment in", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "contravention of the express contract.” Id. (quoting Bates v. Seldin, 146 Idaho 772, 776–77, 203", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "P.3d 702, 706–07 (2009)).", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "The parties do not dispute the existence of an attorney-client relationship between the", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "Estate and Murphy, or that Murphy received approximately $3,970.89 for legal services that she", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "13", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "provided to the Estate. The Estate’s complaint alleged that Murphy’s retention of those fees is", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "unjust in light of her misconduct during the representation. The alleged misconduct falls into four", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "categories: (1) disclosure of a confidential email between Crystal and Murphy to Nicholas during", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "the October 1, 2020, meeting; (2) consistent advice to refinance the Property rather than sell it,", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "ultimately resulting in the Property’s transfer to Crystal and her husband; (3) communications with", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "Nicholas’ attorney that included inaccurate numbers for the Estate, provided without the personal", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "representative’s knowledge or input; and (4) withdrawal from the representation after her conduct", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "created unnecessary contention, followed by her failure to produce the Estate’s complete legal file.", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "These allegations are not unique to the unjust enrichment claim; rather, they are the same", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "facts the Estate emphasized in its opposition brief before the district court to demonstrate Murphy’s", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "breach of the duty of care under the negligence (malpractice) cause of action.", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "We have consistently held that, while legal malpractice actions combine elements of both", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "tort and contract theories, they generally sound in tort, not in contract. See, e.g., Bishop v. Owens,", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "152 Idaho 616, 620, 272 P.3d 1247, 1251 (2012). In Bishop, this Court explained that, while", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "malpractice actions may be seen as an “amalgam of tort and contract theories, when the allegation", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "is that an attorney failed to meet the standard of care expected of an attorney arising from the", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "attorney-client relationship, “[a] person cannot change a tort action into a contract action simply", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "by labeling it as such.” Id. at 620–21, 272 P.3d at 1251–52 (citations omitted). Although “[t]he", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "scope of an attorney’s contractual duty to a client is defined by the purposes for which the attorney", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "is retained,” the duties owed are not created by the fee agreement; instead, an attorney’s duties are", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "“defined by the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.” Id. at 620, 272 P.3d at 1251 (citations", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "Here, Murphy’s duty to the Estate arose from the attorney-client relationship. See id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "621, 272 P.3d at 1552. The misconduct alleged by the Estate, if true, would constitute a breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "Murphy’s professional duty of care, defined by the relevant Rules of Professional Conduct. See,", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "e.g., Idaho R. of Prof’l Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 4.1 (2004). They are malpractice allegations.", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "The Estate cites Parkinson to support its assertion that unjust enrichment is an independent", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "equitable theory of recovery available even after dismissal of a legal malpractice claim. The", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "Estate’s reliance on Parkinson is unavailing because it conflates unjust enrichment with breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "fiduciary duty based on each theory’s equitable character. In Parkinson, this Court addressed", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "whether a client could pursue a breach of fiduciary duty claim seeking fee disgorgement as a", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "14", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "remedy distinct from a legal malpractice claim. 165 Idaho at 604, 448 P.3d at 1032. We adopted", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "section 37, comment d, of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, holding that", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "fee forfeiture is an available sanction when an attorney commits a clear and serious breach of", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "fiduciary duty to a client. Id. at 607, 448 P.3d at 1035. The relevant factors for determining whether", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "fee forfeiture is appropriate include the extent of the misconduct, whether the breach involved", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "knowing violation or conscious disloyalty to a client, whether forfeiture is proportionate to the", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "seriousness of the offense, and the adequacy of other remedies. Id. (citing Restatement (Third) of", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "the Law Governing Lawyers § 37 cmt. d (2000)).", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "Unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty are distinct causes of action with separate", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "elements. As previously stated, unjust enrichment requires proof that a benefit was conferred,", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "appreciated, and inequitably retained. Pickering, 173 Idaho at 489, 544 P.3d at 146. In contrast,", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "breach of fiduciary duty requires proof that the defendant owed a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "and that this duty was breached in a clear and serious manner. Parkinson, 165 Idaho at 609, 448", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "P.3d at 1037. The Estate did not allege a cause of action against Murphy for breach of fiduciary", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "duty. It pleaded unjust enrichment. Our reasoning in Parkinson, that breach of fiduciary duty may", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "proceed independently of malpractice, does not extend to unjust enrichment claims premised on", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "the same allegations of professional negligence.", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "Moreover, the holding in Parkinson is narrow. We explained that", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "[t]o the extent that legal malpractice plaintiffs seek both damages and fee", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "disgorgement, the principles articulated in this decision would apply to the", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "equitable portion of the claim. But, if the breach of fiduciary duty claim includes a", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "claim for damages, that claim is appropriately subsumed by the legal malpractice", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "Id. at 608, 448 P.3d at 1036. The result in Parkinson “offer[s] relief to a client only in those cases", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "in which the client seeks fee disgorgement as a solitary remedy.” Id. Here, the Estate did not seek", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "fee disgorgement as a solitary remedy. Rather, it sought forfeiture of the $3,970.89 in attorney fees", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "paid to Murphy under the unjust enrichment claim while simultaneously claiming $37,777.63 in", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "damages under the negligence (legal malpractice) claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "The Estate next contends that Rule 8 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure permits pleading", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "unjust enrichment in the alternative, citing Thomas v. Thomas, 150 Idaho 636, 644, 249 P.3d 829,", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "837 (2011). In Thomas, a son filed breach of oral contract and unjust enrichment claims against", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "his parents after his father orally promised to transfer a family car dealership to him in exchange", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "for working at reduced pay. Id. at 638, 249 P.3d at 831. The son worked for below-market", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "15", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "compensation, but his parents sold the dealership to a third party. Id. at 639, 249 P.3d at 832. On", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "a motion for summary judgment, the district court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "640, 249 P.3d at 833. The district court explained that express employment contracts governed the", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "parties’ relationship and compensation. Id. On a second motion for summary judgment, the court", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "dismissed the oral contract claim, holding that a material price term was never agreed upon and", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "that the contract was unenforceable. Id. at 641, 249 P.3d at 834.", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "The son appealed, challenging the district court’s unjust enrichment decision. Id. This", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "Court noted a procedural concern with the trial court’s premature dismissal of the unjust", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "enrichment claim before determining whether the asserted express agreements were enforceable,", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "since unjust enrichment may be available when no enforceable contract governs. See id. at 643–", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "44, 249 P.3d at 836–37. The Court further explained that had both parties “unequivocally admitted", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "the existence and enforceability of all provisions of the [contract], the Court would have to dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "[the] unjust enrichment claim.” Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Brown & Brown, Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "Cola, 745 F. Supp. 2d 588, 625 (E.D. Pa. 2010)). Since the enforceability of the oral contract", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "remained in dispute, the unjust enrichment claim persisted as an alternative theory. See id.", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "Nevertheless, this Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the parents after determining that", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "subsequently executed written contracts superseded the oral contract and were enforceable. Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "644–45, 249 P.3d at 837–38.", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "Thomas is inapposite. There, the dispute concerned the enforceability of an express", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "contract, and unjust enrichment served as an alternative if the contract was found unenforceable.", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "Id. at 644, 249 P.3d at 837. In this case, the Estate’s unjust enrichment claim is not an alternative", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "to a contract claim. As explained above, the Estate’s unjust enrichment claim is an alternative to a", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "tort claim. See Bishop, 152 Idaho at 620, 272 P.3d at 1251. The attorney-client relationship", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "between the Estate and Murphy is undisputed. While the parties disagree about whether a written", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "agreement existed, that dispute is immaterial because the duty Murphy owed the Estate arose from", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "the professional relationship, and any alleged breach of that duty is a tort, not a breach of contract.", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "See id. The Estate “cannot change a tort action into a contract action simply by labeling it as such.”", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "Id. at 621, 272 P.3d at 1252.", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "The Estate has not established any element of unjust enrichment independent of its", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "malpractice theory; rather, it has recast the same claim under a quasi-contractual label. We affirm", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Murphy on this cause of action.", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "16", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "B. The district court properly granted summary judgment on the Estate’s ICPA cause of", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "action.", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "On appeal, the Estate asserts that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "its claim that Murphy violated the ICPA, as set forth in Idaho Code sections 48-601 through 48-", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "619. The district court granted summary judgment in Murphy’s favor on two independent grounds.", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "First, it concluded that the ICPA claim arose from the same attorney-client relationship and", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "allegations of negligent representation and was, therefore, subsumed by the malpractice claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "Second, the court determined that the Estate failed to present evidence of any unfair, deceptive, or", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "unconscionable conduct by Murphy sufficient to satisfy the ICPA’s requirements.", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "The Estate contends that the district court applied the incorrect legal standard, that the", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "ICPA applies to attorneys, that it identified conduct constituting violations of Idaho Code section", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "48-603(13) and (17), and that the ICPA claim is not subsumed by the legal malpractice claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "1. Governing principles of the ICPA.", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "The ICPA declares unlawful certain “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce[.]” I.C. § 48-603. The purpose of the", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "ICPA is “to protect both consumers and businesses against unfair methods of competition and", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "unfair or deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, and to provide efficient", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "and economical procedures to secure such protection.” I.C. § 48-601. “Trade” and “commerce”", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "are defined as “the advertising, offering for sale, selling, leasing, renting, collecting debts arising", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "out of the sale or lease of goods or services or distributing goods or services, either to or from", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "locations within the state of Idaho, or directly or indirectly affecting the people of this state.” I.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "§ 48-602(2). “Services” are defined as “work, labor or any other act or practice provided or", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "performed by a seller to or on behalf of a consumer.” I.C. § 48-602(7).", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "Section 48-608(1) provides the cause of action and remedies for a consumer. To establish", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "a claim under the ICPA, a consumer must prove three elements: (1) the consumer purchased goods", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "or services from a seller; (2) the seller engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "unlawful under the ICPA; and (3) the unfair acts or practices caused the consumer to suffer an", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "ascertainable loss of money or property. I.C. § 48-608(1); Litster Frost Inj. Laws., PLLC v. Idaho", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "Inj. L. Grp., PLLC, 171 Idaho 1, 11, 518 P.3d 1, 11 (2022). “If a consumer proves all three", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "elements, he or she may elect remedies.” Id. (citing I.C. § 48-608(1)). “[A]n assortment of", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "remedies is available,” including “rescission, damages, restitution, injunctive relief, punitive", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "17", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "damages, and ‘any other appropriate relief which the court in its discretion may deem just and", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "necessary.’” Id. at 15, 518 P.3d at 15 (quoting I.C. § 48-608(1)).", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "Proof of intent to deceive is not required; rather, “the offending party must be a person who", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "knows, or in the exercise of due care should know, that he has in the past, or is [currently,]", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "committing an act or practice declared unlawful” under the ICPA. Tricore Invs., LLC v. Est. of", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "Warren ex rel. Warren, 168 Idaho 596, 618, 485 P.3d 92, 114 (2021) (citation modified). The", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "ICPA also prohibits unconscionable conduct in trade or commerce, “whether it occurs before,", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "during, or after the conduct of the trade or commerce.” I.C. § 48-603C(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "2. The Estate failed to produce evidence of an ICPA violation.", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "The Estate maintains that Litster Frost establishes that attorneys and law firms are subject", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "to ICPA liability, and that the district court should have first analyzed whether Murphy provided", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "“services.” The Estate further asserts that there is no statutory exception for attorneys under the", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "ICPA, noting that Idaho Code section 48-605 provides exceptions for broadcasters, publishers, and", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "public utilities, and that the legislature could have excluded attorneys if it intended to do so.", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "Murphy acknowledges that attorneys are not exempt from ICPA claims. The holding in", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "Litster Frost confirms that the ICPA can apply to attorneys in appropriate circumstances, such as", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "when a law firm engages in deceptive practices regarding the terms of a fee agreement. 171 Idaho", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "at 11–13, 518 P.3d at 11–13.", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "The Estate’s complaint alleged violations of Idaho Code section 48-603(5), (9), (13), and", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "(17), as well as Idaho Code section 48-603C. On appeal, however, the Estate narrows its argument", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "to section 48-603(13) and (17). We address those provisions in turn.", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "a. The Estate did not create a genuine issue of material fact under Idaho Code section 48-", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "603(13).", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "Idaho Code section 48-603(13) specifically prohibits a seller from “[f]ailing to deliver to", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "the consumer at the time of the consumer’s signature a legible copy of the contract or of any other", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "document that the seller or lender has required or requested the buyer to sign, and that he has", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "signed, during or after the contract negotiation[.]” I.C. § 48-603(13). The Estate contends that", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "Murphy violated this provision by failing to provide the personal representative with a copy of the", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "contract she signed upon establishing the attorney-client relationship, and that the signed contract", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "did not surface until discovery in this case, more than four years later. Murphy responds that the", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "Estate’s personal representative never signed a contract. The district court found that the Estate", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "did not present sufficient facts to overcome summary judgment on this theory.", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "18", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "We agree with the district court. At summary judgment, the Estate bore the burden of", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "presenting sufficient evidence to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Kiebert v. Goss, 144", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "Idaho 225, 228, 159 P.3d 862, 865 (2007). The Estate’s verified complaint alleged that “[u]pon", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "information and belief,” the agreement “was signed” and that Murphy “failed or refused to provide", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "a copy . . . .” However, in opposition to summary judgment the Estate did not submit evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "establishing that a signed contract existed or separately develop the significance of the alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "omission under Idaho Code section 48-603(13).", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "The Estate did not develop its argument in detail until its reply brief on appeal. Even then,", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "the document it identified was a one-page intake form requesting general client information. At", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "the top, the form stated, “CONSULTATION FEE due at time of service . . . $250 per Hour.” The", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "remainder of the form collected the personal representative’s legal name, address, phone number,", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "email, and employer information; two lines for initials were left blank. The intake form is not a", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "signed contract. In addition, the Estate did not show how the alleged failure to provide a copy of", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "the intake form caused an “ascertainable loss of money or property” as Idaho Code section 48-", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "608(1) requires. See Litster Frost, 171 Idaho at 13–14, 518 P.3d at 13–14 (explaining the client", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "was deprived of money “she would have otherwise been entitled to”). The Estate did not establish", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "a genuine issue of material fact that Idaho Code section 48-603(13) was violated.", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "b. The Estate did not create a genuine issue of material fact under Idaho Code section 48-", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "603(17).", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "Idaho Code section 48-603(17) declares it unlawful to engage “in any act or practice that", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "is otherwise misleading, false, or deceptive to the consumer[.]” I.C. § 48-603(17). To sustain a", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "claim under this provision, the consumer must demonstrate that the defendant knew, or in the", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "exercise of due care should have known, that the statements or conduct at issue were misleading,", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "false, or deceptive. Tricore Invs., LLC, 168 Idaho at 618, 485 P.3d at 114 (citing I.C. § 48-603(17)).", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "The Estate identifies five categories of alleged misleading, false, or deceptive conduct: (1)", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "Murphy gave consistent advice regarding refinancing the Property and later changed that advice;", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "(2) Murphy misrepresented her role in the refinancing process to opposing counsel; (3) Murphy", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "shared the personal representative’s confidential email with Nicholas during the October 2020", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "meeting; (4) Murphy provided inaccurate information to opposing counsel without the personal", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "representative’s knowledge; and (5) Murphy withdrew from representation when the Estate was", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "exposed to litigation.", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "19", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "Those allegations do not establish an ICPA claim. The ICPA targets consumer-facing", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "deception in trade or commerce, such as misrepresenting the characteristics of goods or services,", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "advertising services with an intent not to sell them as advertised, or otherwise misleading", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "consumers about the transaction. See I.C. § 48-603(1)–(18). For example, in Lister Frost, a law", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "firm violated the ICPA by guaranteeing that it “would not charge [the client] anything” if she", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "terminated the firm before receiving a settlement offer, in direct contradiction of the language in", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "the written fee agreement stating that the client will be charged if the client fires the firm regardless", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "of whether the client receives a settlement offer. 171 Idaho at 13, 518 P.3d at 13. In Duspiva v.", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "Fillmore, we concluded that a well driller violated the ICPA by misleading consumers regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "the regulatory and practical consequences of a deeper well. 154 Idaho 27, 33–34, 293 P.3d 651,", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "657–58 (2013). In contrast, in Pickering, a landlord’s statements regarding a lease agreement did", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "not violate the ICPA because the statements were subject to conflicting inferences rather than", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "being deceptive. 173 Idaho at 486, 544 P.3d at 143.", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "The conduct alleged by the Estate concerns Murphy’s performance as counsel within an", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": "attorney-client relationship, not deceptive representations. The allegation that Murphy changed her", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "advice about refinancing the Property challenges the quality of legal services. The allegation that", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "she shared a confidential email concerns the handling of privileged communications. The", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "allegation regarding statements to opposing counsel concern litigation-related communication.", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "Finally, the allegation that she withdrew from representation concerns the termination of the", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "attorney-client relationship. Those acts do not amount to misleading, false, or deceptive consumer", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "practices within the meaning of Idaho Code section 48-603(17).", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "In summary, the Estate failed to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "that Murphy engaged in conduct prohibited by the ICPA. Accordingly, the district court properly", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "granted summary judgment in Murphy’s favor. We affirm the district court’s decision granting", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "summary judgment in Murphy’s favor on the Estate’s ICPA cause of action and we need not", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "address whether the ICPA claim was subsumed by the malpractice claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "C. Neither party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "Murphy requests attorney fees on appeal under Rule 41 of the Idaho Appellate Rules and", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "Idaho Code section 12-121. Murphy argues that this appeal was pursued frivolously, unreasonably,", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "and without foundation because the Estate did not identify facts in the record to support its unjust", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "enrichment or violation of the ICPA claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "20", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "Attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-121 are not awarded to a prevailing", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "party as a matter of right but, rather, are subject to this court’s discretion. See Snap! Mobile, Inc.", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "v. Vertical Raise, LLC, 173 Idaho 499, 528, 544 P.3d 714, 743 (2024). “In any civil action, the", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "judge may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party or parties when the judge finds", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "that the case was brought, pursued or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.”", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "I.C. § 12-121. On appeal, “[a]n award of attorney fees is appropriate if the law is well-settled and", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "the appellants have made no substantial showing that the district court misapplied the law.”", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "Ramlow v. Mitchell, ___ Idaho ___, ___, 571 P.3d 437, 443–44 (2025) (citation omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "Because we affirm the district court’s decision, Murphy is the prevailing party. In the", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "litigation between the Estate and Murphy, the Estate raised valid and serious concerns about", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "Murphy’s advice, communications, and conduct while representing the Estate. Ultimately,", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "however, the manner in which the Estate prosecuted this appeal, including the issues it raised and", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "the arguments it advanced, was unavailing. Although a close question, we decline to conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "the appeal was pursued frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "As the prevailing party, Murphy is entitled to recover costs on appeal under Idaho", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "Appellate Rule 40(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "V. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "We affirm the district court’s judgment in Murphy’s favor. Costs on appeal are awarded to", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "Murphy.", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "Chief Justice BEVAN and Justices BRODY, MOELLER and BURDICK, J. Pro Tem,", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "CONCUR.", "paragraph_id": "para_671" } ], "word_count": 8514, "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "5cf56fb51ca86a33bf8f163cb6849ac0e6efae014ef22b8f77d1420eddf53a80", "source_url": "https://api.isc.idaho.gov/uploads/Documents/ISC/Civil/2026/1778081836253-52242.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-08T23:06:51.763+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/idaho-52242-2026-05-05", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:idaho-52242-2026-05-05", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:idaho-52242-2026-05-05", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:idaho-52242-2026-05-05", "neighbors": [ { "id": "us:mdctspecapp-0284-24-2026-10-05", "name": "3919 NEH v. Salinas", "decided": "2026-10-05", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:mdctspecapp-0284-24-2026-10-05", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:mdctspecapp-0284-24-2026-10-05", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:mdctspecapp-0284-24-2026-10-05" }, { "id": "us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "name": "Mohammadi v. Tong", "decided": "2026-09-29", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:connappct-ac47598-2026-09-29" }, { "id": "us:ill-132101-2026-09-24", "name": "Greenswag v. Lieberman Management Services, Inc.", "decided": "2026-09-24", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ill-132101-2026-09-24" }, { "id": "us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-2537-2026-09-24", "name": "Durbal v. Association of American Medical Colleges", "decided": "2026-09-24", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-2537-2026-09-24", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-2537-2026-09-24", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-2537-2026-09-24" }, { "id": "us:ca2-25-76-2026-08-26", "name": "Waters v. Kory", "decided": "2026-08-26", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-25-76-2026-08-26", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-25-76-2026-08-26", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-25-76-2026-08-26" }, { "id": "us:dc-24-cv-0778-24-cv-0982-2026-08-20", "name": "Edwards & Jones v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB", "decided": "2026-08-20", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:dc-24-cv-0778-24-cv-0982-2026-08-20", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:dc-24-cv-0778-24-cv-0982-2026-08-20", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:dc-24-cv-0778-24-cv-0982-2026-08-20" }, { "id": "us:nc-86a23-2-2026-08-14", "name": "Turpin v. Charlotte Latin Schools, Inc.", "decided": "2026-08-14", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:nc-86a23-2-2026-08-14", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:nc-86a23-2-2026-08-14", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:nc-86a23-2-2026-08-14" }, { "id": "us:ca11-24-13590-2026-08-04", "name": "Deltona Transformer Corporation v. The Noco Company", "decided": "2026-08-04", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-24-13590-2026-08-04", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-24-13590-2026-08-04", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-24-13590-2026-08-04" }, { "id": "us:ca8-24-3382-25-1428-2026-08-03", "name": "Dan Pennington v. BHP Billiton Petrol (Fayetteville)", "decided": "2026-08-03", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-24-3382-25-1428-2026-08-03", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-24-3382-25-1428-2026-08-03", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-24-3382-25-1428-2026-08-03" }, { "id": "us:ca8-25-3205-2026-07-31", "name": "United HealthCare Services, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation", "decided": "2026-07-31", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-3205-2026-07-31", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-3205-2026-07-31", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-3205-2026-07-31" } ], "verification": { "stored_sha256": "5cf56fb51ca86a33bf8f163cb6849ac0e6efae014ef22b8f77d1420eddf53a80", "recomputed_sha256": "5cf56fb51ca86a33bf8f163cb6849ac0e6efae014ef22b8f77d1420eddf53a80", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-18T13:37:09.751Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:f94bfabba18f6176cc6f755d6fc00ac719734c51c7921753a95b9ac2efdc9aa5", "version": "legal-2026-10-18", "expires": "2026-10-19T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-18+legal-2026-10-18+2026-10-18T13:14:36", "content_hash": "sha256:f94bfabba18f6176cc6f755d6fc00ac719734c51c7921753a95b9ac2efdc9aa5", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-18T14:37:10.597Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:idaho-52242-2026-05-05", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:idaho-52242-2026-05-05" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:idaho-52242-2026-05-05" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:idaho-52242-2026-05-05" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }