Opinion ID: 874217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Granting the Partial Summary Judgment Without Addressing Thomasons' Counterclaims?

Text: Thomasons contend that the district court abused its discretion when ignoring the appellants' counter-complaint against the respondents for breach of contract, fraud and fraud by inducement, duress and unjust enrichment. Thomasons did not allege a claim for fraud or fraud in the inducement. They alleged in count one of their complaint that they suffered damages because they signed the warranty deed and contract for reconveyance under duress caused by those documents being presented to them about ten minutes before the real property would have been sold at a foreclosure sale. They alleged in count two of their complaint that they suffered damages when Bagleys asserted sole ownership of the real property and ownership of chattels and water shares. They alleged in count three of their complaint that after the time for them to repurchase the property had expired, Bagleys committed extortion by demanding that Thomasons remove all of their personal property from the real property and threatening adverse consequences if they failed to do so. They alleged in count four of their complaint that they were entitled to damages for unjust enrichment. Thomasons have not presented any argument or authority as to why the court should have denied the motion for partial summary judgment until their counterclaims were decided. We will not consider assignments of error not supported by argument and authority in the opening brief. Hogg v. Wolske, 142 Idaho 549, 559, 130 P.3d 1087, 1097 (2006).