IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 35119
TOWER ASSET SUB INC., a Delaware )
corporation, ) Coeur d’Alene, April 2010 Term
)
Plaintiff, ) 2010 Opinion No. 87
)
and ) Filed: August 25, 2010
)
SPECTRA SITE, LLC, ) Stephen Kenyon, Clerk
)
Real Party in Interest-Respondent, )
) AMENDED OPINION, THE
v. ) COURT’S PRIOR OPINION
) DATED JULY 26, 2010 IS
DOUGLAS P. LAWRENCE and BRENDA J. ) HEREBY WITHDRAWN
LAWRENCE, husband and wife, )
)
Defendants-Appellants )
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.
The appeal is dismissed.
Douglas P. Lawrence and Brenda J. Lawrence, Coeur d’Alene, pro se appellants.
Douglas Lawrence argued.
James, Vernon & Weeks, P.A., Coeur d’Alene, for respondent. Susan Weeks
argued.
_______________________________________________
HORTON, Justice
This case involves the question whether Mark and Robert Hall (the Halls) hold an
easement over the land of Douglas and Brenda Lawrence (the Lawrences). Spectra Site
Communications, LLC (Spectra Site) leases the Halls’ property and seek to enforce the claimed
easement. This is a companion case to Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence, No. 35120-
2008.
1
The Lawrences appeal from the district court’s memorandum decision and order granting
Spectra Site’s motion for summary judgment. Because we do not have jurisdiction to decide this
case, we dismiss this appeal.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Lawrences and Halls own parcels of property on Blossom Mountain, south of Post
Falls, Idaho. In 2002, Capstar filed an action seeking recognition of an easement over the
property owned by the Lawrences to maintain and repair a radio transmitter located on Capstar’s
property. Tower Asset Sub Inc. (Tower), a predecessor entity now merged with Spectra Site,
filed this similar action in 2003. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Tower
on a theory of express easement. The Lawrences appealed and this Court reversed, finding that
the district court erred in its conclusion that an express easement existed over the Lawrence
property in favor of the Hall parcel. Tower Asset Sub Inc. v. Lawrence, 143 Idaho 710, 715, 152
P.3d 581, 586 (2007).
On remand, Tower renewed its motion for summary judgment and moved to substitute
Spectra Site as the real party in interest. On February 6, 2008, the district court issued a
combined decision in both the Capstar and Tower/Spectra Site cases captioned as a
“Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and
Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Real Party in Interest” (the Memorandum
Decision). Although the Memorandum Decision granted summary judgment in favor of Spectra
Site, there is no judgment in the record. The Lawrences now appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time on its own
initiative. T.J.T., Inc. v. Mori, 148 Idaho 825, 826, 230 P.3d 435, 436 (2010) (citing In re
Quesnell Dairy, 143 Idaho 691, 693, 152 P.3d 562, 564 (2007)). Indeed, “this Court is always
obligated to ensure its own jurisdiction.” State v. Doe, 149 Idaho 353, ___, 233 P.3d 1275, 1278
n. 3 (2010) (citing Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 145 Idaho 958, 960, 188 P.3d 900, 902
(2008)). “Jurisdictional issues are questions of law over which this Court exercises free review.”
T.J.T., Inc., 148 Idaho at 826, 230 P.3d at 436 (citing Christian v. Mason, 148 Idaho 149, 151,
219 P.3d 473, 475 (2009)).
2
III. ANALYSIS
The Memorandum Decision concluded with a section entitled “Order” that states, in
pertinent part, as follows: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Capstar v. Lawrence, CV 2002 7671 and Renewed Motion for
Summary Judmgnet [sic] filed in Tower Asset Sub, Inc. v. Lawrence, CV 2003 4621, are
GRANTED.” (capitalization, bold original).
In In re Universe Life Insurance Co., this Court reiterated earlier statements that “[a]n
order granting summary judgment does not constitute a judgment.” 144 Idaho 751, 756, 171
P.3d 242, 247 (2007) (citing Camp; Hunting v. Clark Co. School Dist. No. 161, 129 Idaho 634,
931 P.2d 628 (1997)). More recently, in Spokane Structures, Inc. v. Equitable Inv., LLC, 148
Idaho 616, 619, 226 P.3d 1263, 1266 (2010), this Court explained that “[t]he judgment sought is
a final determination of a claim or claims for relief in the lawsuit.” The Court continued:
The relief to which a party is entitled is not the granting of a motion for summary
judgment. [Rule 54(c), I.R.C.P.] refers to the relief to which the party is
ultimately entitled in the lawsuit, or with respect to a claim in the lawsuit. The
granting of a motion for summary judgment is simply a procedural step towards
the party obtaining that relief.
Id.
Thus, when faced with the situation where the trial court had entered an order granting
summary judgment, but no separate judgment was entered, this Court had no alternative but to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. T.J.T., Inc., 148 Idaho at 826, 230 P.3d at 436. For
the same reason, this appeal must be dismissed.
IV. CONCLUSION
This Court does not have jurisdiction to decide this appeal as no final and appealable
judgment was entered below. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Chief Justice EISMANN and Justices BURDICK, J. JONES and W. JONES CONCUR.
3