Farr West Investments (Farr West) and Vilarr Ransom (Ransom) filed separate law-suits against Topaz Marketing, L.P., and Dennis Lower (collectively Lower) to recover damages for injury to real property caused when Lower constructed a road on an easement crossing Farr West's property. The facts are set forth in more detail in Ransom v. Topaz Marketing, L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 152 P.3d 2 (2006), the first appeal in this case. The lawsuits were joined for trial. The law-suit filed by Ransom was resolved through mediation, and the lawsuit filed by Farr West was tried to the district court without a jury.
Creamer relies on this Court's decision in Ransom v. Topaz Marketing, L.P. for his argument that he is entitled to the cost of repair and injunctive relief. 143 Idaho 641, 152 P.3d 2 (2006).
Green River Ranches, LLC v. Silva Land Co., LLC , 162 Idaho 385, 389, 397 P.3d 1144, 1148 (2017). See also Radford v. Van Orden , 168 Idaho 287, 298, 483 P.3d 344, 355 (2021), as amended (Mar. 22, 2021); Mortensen v. Berian , 163 Idaho 47, 50, 408 P.3d 45, 48 (2017) ; Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P. , 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006). Even Weitz specifies that "[t]he findings of the trial court on the question of damages will not be set aside when based upon substantial and competent evidence."
These findings of fact will not be set aside unless the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006). "If the trial court based its findings on substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting, this Court will not overturn those findings on appeal."
The Court finds it need not decide if the trespass was a continuing trespass at this time as the damages for a continuing trespass are subsumed within common law trespass remedies. Ransom v. Topaz Marketing, L.P., 152 P.3d 2, 6 (Idaho 2006) The Court finds damages beyond the fair market value or diminution in value are allowed under Idaho case law.
This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006); I.R.C.P. 52(a). If the trial court based its findings on substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting, this Court will not overturn those findings on appeal. Benninger, 142 Idaho at 489, 129 P.3d at 1238. Additionally, this Court will not substitute its view of the facts for that of the trial court.
This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006) ; I.R.C.P. 52(a). If the trial court based its findings on substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting, this Court will not overturn those findings on appeal.
This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous. Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006) ; I.R.C.P. 52(a). If the trial court based its findings on substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting, this Court will not overturn those findings on appeal.
“This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous.” Id. (citing Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006); I.R.C.P. 52(a)). Therefore, if the trial court's findings are based upon “substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting,” those findings will not be overturned on appeal.
Id. (citing Rowley v. Fuhrman, 133 Idaho 105, 107, 982 P.2d 940, 942 (1999) ). "This Court will not set aside a trial court's findings of fact unless the findings are clearly erroneous." Id. (citing Ransom v. Topaz Mktg., L.P., 143 Idaho 641, 643, 152 P.3d 2, 4 (2006) ; I.R.C.P. 52(a) ). Therefore, if the trial court's findings are based upon "substantial evidence, even if the evidence is conflicting," those findings will not be overturned on appeal.