RONALD L. SWAFFORD and MARGARET SWAFFORD, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
HUNTSMAN SPRINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
Opinion No. 125
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
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 failed to comply with the Master
Plan by essentially cutting off their property from the
development. 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
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").
At the time of purchase, Huntsman Springs' promotional
materials included a Master Plan, which indicated that the
Property's east side would be bordered by a walk and bike
path while its west side would be bordered by grass, trees,
and a path or roadway. On September 21, 2007, the sale of the
Property closed with the recording of a warranty deed.
2007 and 2008, Primrose Street, which bordered the west side
of the Property, was paved, but the area between Primrose
Street and the Property was improved by adding landscaping, a
walking path, and trees. Thus, the Property did not have
access to 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 Master Plan." The
Swaffords alleged the following: (1) Huntsman Springs
breached the Contract 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 marketing and sales ...