Wyatt B. Johnson

Mr. Johnson has tried multiple cases involving financial fraud, contract disagreements, land rights, shareholder rights and duties, trusts, and other various matters. He has successfully argued many of these cases through appeals to the Idaho Supreme Court and United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This depth of experience makes him both a skilled litigator, as well as an insightful legal advisor.

In addition to his legal work, Mr. Johnson volunteers a significant amount of time to community and professional organizations. He is the past president of the Idaho Trial Lawyers Association, a past Chairman of the Litigation Section of the Idaho State Bar, and has served on the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on the Idaho Rules of Evidence. His community involvement includes his service on the West Boise YMCA's Advisory Board and a past Idaho Smart Growth presidency. Finally, he is currently the chairman of the Arid Club, an Idaho institution that was originally formed in 1890.

Representative Matters

Represented owners of a four season, national destination resort against multi-million dollar claims by an international lending institution and investment consortium.
Obtained landmark decision from the Idaho Supreme Court regarding legal land descriptions and the Statute of Frauds.
Represented a large real estate brokerage in an antitrust class action by home buyers against real estate agents and brokers.
Represented shareholders, members and partners in partnership and limited liability company disputes.
Represented guarantors in cases involving claims on personal guarantees.
Crafted and executed strategy for the purchase and sale of large residential subdivision and entitlements to close midway through construction and development.
Developed and executed strategy for complex loan workout transactions involving land developers, lending institutions, and various items of collateral including land, contract rights and other significant assets.
Consulted for commercial product supplier on multi-state government contract.
Represented utility provider on multiple land transactions.
Represented developer in resolution of water right priority claims for development land in Snake River Basin Adjudication.
Represented builders, developers and landowners before local land use and zoning authorities on matters such as land development entitlements, zoning disputes, variances and modifications.
Represented lien holder and debtors in judicial mortgage foreclosures of commercial and residential land.
Represented volume home builder in complex multi-party litigation with contract, forgery and fraud claims arising from an investment scheme involving numerous investors and properties.

Publications

“Beware the Simple Real Estate Transaction” The Advocate (February 2005)

“A Brief Writing Guide for Litigators, The Advocate (March/April 2008)

Decisions of Interest

Ray v Frasure, 146 Idaho 625, 200 P.3d 1174, Idaho, January 30, 2009
- This case was a landmark decision in Idaho case law. The Court evaluated the history of the statute of frauds caselaw and created a bright-line rule that the statute of frauds requires a legal description in all land purchase contracts.
Investor Recovery Fund vs. Hopkins, Idaho
- This securities fraud decision by the Idaho Supreme Court significantly adds to the body of case law with an in-depth discussion about the distinction between the standard that trial courts must apply when ruling on a motion for directed verdict and the standard that a jury would use in deciding the underlying cause of action.
Nampa Highway District v. Knight
- This case announces a significant shift in the amount of notice of adverse interests that the public is deemed to have from physical features in the land. Prior to this decision, Idaho case law established that that when there is “inquiry notice” of adverse interests in land, the public was deemed to have notice of “every fact” that a further examination would have revealed. However, this decision softens that standard by holding that the notice only extends to what a “reasonable investigation” would disclose, and requires an evidentiary showing on that element.