We conclude that the State is correct in its assertion that Wilks' storage of his inoperable motor vehicles on his parents' property is not protected as a preexisting, nonconforming use because Wilks is not the owner of the real property. It is well recognized that a nonconforming use is a use of land which lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance even though not in compliance with use restrictions. Kootenai Cnty. v. Harriman-Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 18, 293 P.3d 637, 642 (2012); Baxter v. City of Preston, 115 Idaho 607, 608-09, 768 P.2d 1340, 1341-42 (1989). Furthermore, it is a property-right protection based upon the state and federal due process clauses.
When it comes to motion practice, "[p]ro se litigants are held to the same standards and rules as those represented by an attorney." Kootenai Cnty. v. Harriman-Sayler , 154 Idaho 13, 17, 293 P.3d 637, 641 (2012) (quoting Hoover v. Hunter , 150 Idaho 658, 661, 249 P.3d 851, 854 (2011) ). IV. ANALYSIS
This Court has previously held that it is "bound by the record on appeal and ‘cannot consider matters or materials that are not part of the record or not contained in the record.’ " Kootenai Cnty. v. Harriman-Sayler , 154 Idaho 13, 16, 293 P.3d 637, 640 (2012) (quoting Chisholm v. Dep’t of Water Res. , 142 Idaho 159, 162, 125 P.3d 515, 518 (2005) ). "The party appealing a decision of the district court bears the burden of ensuring that this Court is provided a sufficient record for review of the district court’s decision."
"[O]nce the moving party has met its burden, the adverse party must present affirmative evidence that demonstrates the existence of a genuine issue of material fact." Kootenai Cnty. v. Harriman–Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 17, 293 P.3d 637, 641 (2012). The Nickersons have not shown the existence of admissible evidence necessary to withstand PHH's motion for summary judgment.
Because this Court does not search the record for error, and the party “alleging error has the burden of showing it in the record.” Kootenai Cnty. v. Harriman–Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 17, 293 P.3d 637, 641 (2012) (quoting Miller v. Callear, 140 Idaho 213, 218, 91 P.3d 1117, 1122 (2004)). Here, because the Whites provide no citation to the record to support their claim that tracked machinery historically used the road, this Court will not entertain their argument that the court erred in granting the Akers $1,760 to repair the surface of the access road.
Because this Court does not search the record for error, and the party "alleging error has the burden of showing it in the record." Kootenai Cnty. v. Harriman–Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 17, 293 P.3d 637, 641 (2012) (quoting Miller v. Callear, 140 Idaho 213, 218, 91 P.3d 1117, 1122 (2004) ). Here, because the Whites provide no citation to the record to support their claim that tracked machinery historically used the road, this Court will not entertain their argument that the court erred in granting the Akers $1,760 to repair the surface of the access road.
We have held that Idaho Code § 12–117 is “the exclusive means for awarding attorney fees for the entities to which it applies.” Kootenai Cnty. v. Harriman–Sayler, ––– Idaho ––––, ––––, 293 P.3d 637, 644 (2012) (quoting Potlatch Educ. Ass'n v. Potlatch Sch. Dist. No. 285, 148 Idaho 630, 635, 226 P.3d 1277, 1282 (2010)). Therefore, the question is whether an irrigation district is a state agency or political subdivision within the meaning of Idaho Code § 12–117.
We have held that Idaho Code § 12–117 is "the exclusive means for awarding attorney fees for the entities to which it applies." Kootenai Cnty. v. Harriman–Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 20, 293 P.3d 637, 644 (2012) (quoting Potlatch Educ. Ass'n v. Potlatch Sch. Dist. No. 285, 148 Idaho 630, 635, 226 P.3d 1277, 1282 (2010) ). Therefore, the question is whether an irrigation district is a state agency or political subdivision within the meaning of Idaho Code § 12–117.
This Court is constrained by the record on appeal and thus cannot consider matters or materials that are not contained in the record. Kootenai Cty. v. Harriman-Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 16, 293 P.3d 637, 640 (2012). "Items attached to a party's opening brief are not part of the record."
A party alleging error has the burden of showing it in the record. Kootenai Cnty. v. Harriman-Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 17, 293 P.3d 637, 641 (2012). Pro se civil litigants are held to compliance with the same standards and rules as those represented by an attorney.