RONALD L. SWAFFORD and MARGARET SWAFFORD, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
HUNTSMAN SPRINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
Opinion No. 80
from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of
the State of Idaho, Teton County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller,
district court's judgment in favor of Huntsman Springs is
affirmed. Attorney fees and costs on appeal are
awarded to Huntsman Springs.
Swafford Law, PLLC, Idaho Falls, attorneys for appellant.
Larren K. Covert argued.
Moulton Law Office, Driggs, attorneys for respondent. Sean R.
Nature of the Case
appeal arising out of Teton County, Appellants, Ronald and
Margaret Swafford (collectively, the "Swaffords"),
challenge a district court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of Respondent Huntsman Springs, Inc. ("Huntsman
Springs"). The action stems from the Swaffords'
claim that Huntsman Springs essentially cut off their
property from the development by building a park and planting
trees between their lot and the nearby street and
development, and in doing so: (1) breached a contract; (2)
breached an express warranty; (3) breached their duty of good
faith and fair dealing; (4) violated the Idaho Consumer
Protection Act; and (5) made false representations. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Huntsman
Springs after concluding that all of the Swaffords'
claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation.
Factual and Procedural Background
Springs is a 1, 350 acre development in Driggs, Idaho, that
is planned to include 650 homes, a five-star hotel, and a
golf course. Between 2006 and 2007, Huntsman Springs promoted
its priority reservation program, which allowed prospective
buyers to reserve an opportunity to purchase certain property
sites. On July 16, 2007, during the infancy of the
development, the Swaffords entered into a contract (the
"Contract") with Huntsman Springs to purchase an
undeveloped commercial site at "Lot 4, Block 50,
Huntsman Springs PUD, Phase 1, Addition to the City of
Driggs, Teton County, Idaho" (the "Property").
On July 20, 2007, Huntsman Springs recorded a plat (the
"Plat") for the subdivision, and on September 21,
2007, the sale closed with the recording of the warranty
deed. According to the Plat, the Property's east side
would border Front Street. The Plat also indicated that an
approximately fifty-foot-wide strip of grass, named
"Park 3, " would separate the Property's west
side from Primrose Street.
2007 and 2008, Primrose Street was paved. Additionally, the
landscaping, walking path, and trees to the west of the
Property, i.e., Park 3, were completed during that
time. Park 3 separated the Property from Primrose Street.
August 20, 2014, Mr. Swafford wrote a letter to Huntsman
that the Master Plan be complied with, providing my lot with
ingress and egress from Primrose as expected from the
address. I also insist that the family walk and bike paths as
well as trees be in place immediately. I hereby request
immediate resolution of this issue. I request the area
conform to the plans provided at the time of purchase."
17, 2015, the Swaffords filed a complaint wherein they
claimed that Huntsman Springs "specifically intended for
the [Swaffords] to rely on the Mater Plan." The
Swaffords alleged the following: (1) Huntsman Springs
breached the contract of sale by failing to comply with the
Master Plan; (2) Huntsman Springs breached an express
warranty that the Property would be developed and improved in
accordance with the Master Plan; (3) Huntsman Springs
breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing
to develop the Property in accordance with the Master Plan;
(4) Huntsman Springs' unfair and deceptive ...