Wyatt B. Johnson

Wyatt Johnson is a civil trial veteran. As lead trial counsel, he has tried multiple cases to juries and judges. He also frequently appears before the Idaho Supreme Court. In addition to trial work, Wyatt engages in a transactional practice involving real estate and related business ventures. He regularly practices before city and county planning and zoning authorities as well as various State administrative agencies. Wyatt graduated summa cum laude from Washington State University with a Bachelor of Arts in English in 1993. In 1998, he graduated in the top quarter of his class from Northwestern School of Law at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. In conjunction with his professional practice, Wyatt is an active member in his community. He has served on the Idaho Supreme Court Evidence Rules Advisory Committee, and is a past president of the Idaho Trial Lawyers’ Association, and is a past Chairman of the Idaho State Bar Litigation Section. He also serves on local non-profit boards for Idaho Smart Growth and the YMCA. He regularly lectures at seminars and workshops providing continuing education for attorneys and other professionals.

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.
In Re Bujak, 2011 WL 5326038, Bkrtcy.D.Idaho, November 03, 2011
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 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.