Court Opinion

ID: 9614531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:26:18.75953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:36.959564
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority. In the real world, closing officers and others dealing in real estate do transact business over the telephone. Proof of this reality may be found in Hoffman v. Sun Valley Co., Inc., 102 Idaho 187, 189, 628 P.2d 218, 220 (1981), wherein this Court held that telephone negotiations over the sale of a lot constituted an oral contract, though that contract ultimately proved unenforceable for failure to comply with the statute of frauds. No unreasoned reliance undermined the agreement in Hoffman; none should have been found here. Anderson had dealt with As-tleford before and found him reliable; she *334was entitled to rely on him in the instant transaction as well.
Contrary to the majority’s claim, the record does not support the district court’s finding of fact that a reasonable and prudent closing officer in the Boise area would not have relied upon a title officer’s oral representations regarding exceptions to a title. For one thing, the two witnesses to whom the district court and the majority deferred testified only to industry standards in Canyon County, not in the Boise area. For another, both witnesses equivocated and expressed the opinion that Anderson was justified in relying on the word of title officer Astleford.
The district court never resolved the conflict between the testimony of Anderson and Astleford. Such would have been essential to determine whether Astleford had misrepresented the status of the title here concerned. The erroneous holding of today’s majority permits the answer to the essential question in this lawsuit to remain forever unspoken.