Opinion ID: 1125431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: other breach of contract claims

Text: DBSI argues that the district court erred in lumping all of its claims for breach of contract in with its breach of fiduciary duty claims and applying the four-year statute of limitations in I.C. § 5-224 to all. DBSI claims that the five-year statute of limitations in I.C. § 5-216 should have been applied to at least its contract claims. DBSI claims it made breach of written contract claims under Counts III, IV and V of its First Amended Complaint. Count IV sounds in fraud, not contract, and the district court properly determined that I.C. § 5-218 applies to this claim. As this Court said in Barnett v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 99 Idaho 246, 580 P.2d 849 (1978): The substance, not the form, of the action controls and determines the applicable Statute of Limitations. Stewart v. Hood Corp., 95 Idaho 198, 506 P.2d 95 (1973); Thomas v. Gordon, 68 Idaho 254, 192 P.2d 856 (1948). The test ... is not whether the fraud or mistake occurred in a contract or independently of contract, but the test rather is whether the action seeks relief from or on account of fraud or mistake. Hillock v. Idaho Title and Trust Co., 22 Idaho 440, 450, 126 P. 612, 616 (1912). Id. at 247, 580 P.2d at 850. Count III alleges breach of an oral representation that FmHA approval would be obtained within six (6) months of May 31, 1984. The district court determined that oral representations were superseded by the written Agreements which made no mention of the six-month time period to acquire FmHA approval. DBSI does not appeal from this ruling. Count III also alleges breach of written promises by Bender that the Projects were being operated in compliance with the FmHA regulations and other Agreements. Count V alleges breach of a written contract by WSDC in failing to prepare ... books, accounts and records ... in a reasonable manner and ... consistent with FmHA regulations. DBSI claims it was damaged because these failures created a delay in obtaining FmHA approval. There are claims for breach of contract in Counts III and V which were not specifically addressed by the district court. Nevertheless, the changes in the FmHA amortization method do not impact DBSI's performance of the contract, and changes in the tax law were anticipated by the parties and DBSI has identified no damages which resulted from these alleged breaches. The district court did not err by granting summary judgment against DBSI on these contract claims. DBSI also claims that it demonstrated that WSDC paid itself $6,185.00, exclusive of interest, in excess of even the management fees authorized by the 1984 Management Agreement. This portion of the decision is remanded for a determination of whether WSDC breached the terms of the 1984 Management Agreement.