Opinion ID: 874085
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The district court had jurisdiction to decide this issue.

Text: The Belstlers argue that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin any rights pursuant to I.C. § 55-313 to relocate an easement found to exist by the court in its decision. They argue that the relocation issue was not pled or argued before the district court, and that although they pled relocation in their complaint, their amended complaint no longer referred to relocation as an issue. Additionally, they argue that there was no explicit reference to I.C. § 55-313 at trial, and that they did not agree to have the relocation issue decided at trial. Further, any references at trial to relocation, they argue referred to settlement and mediation offers. The December 30, 2009 Memorandum Decision stated that the: [P]arties did extensively litigate the relocation issue at trial and the pleadings are deemed amended to include a claim for relocation of the northerly easement. Throughout the trial the parties took the position that if the court should determine that the easements claimed by the CONINES are valid easements, the Court should then determine whether or not the BELSTLERS could, pursuant to I.C. § 55-313 change the location of the northerly easement. Therefore, that issue is ripe for determination at this time by this Court. Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 15(b) states in relevant part that: When issues not raised by the pleading are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.