State of Idaho v. Anthony Michael Matney

── State of Idaho v. Anthony Michael Matney ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52975 PINEHAVEN PLANNING BOARD, ) ) Filed: April 30, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk and ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED IDAHO LOTS, LLC, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) GREGORY CARL BRIM, ) ) Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Fremont County. Hon. Steven W. Boyce, District Judge. Judgment awarding property cleanup costs and attorney fees, affirmed. Gregory Carl Brim, Island Park, pro se appellant. Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, LLP; Marvin M. Smith, Idaho Falls, for respondent. ________________________________________________ MELANSON, Judge Pro Tem Gregory Carl Brim appeals from the district court’s judgment awarding property cleanup costs and attorney fees. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Brim owned residential property subject to recorded covenants and restrictions administrated by the Pinehaven Planning Board. Over time, disputes arose regarding the condition of Brim’s property and whether it complied with the applicable covenants. Pinehaven alleged the property contained excessive debris and other materials inconsistent with the governing 1 restrictions. After efforts to obtain voluntary compliance were unsuccessful, enforcement proceedings were initiated. Pinehaven sought relief authorizing remediation and cleanup of the property, as well as recovery of associated costs. The district court entered orders addressing the alleged violations and ultimately allowed remediation work to occur. Cleanup activities were subsequently undertaken, and Pinehaven later sought recovery of the expenses associated with that work. In support of its request, Pinehaven submitted a verified petition and a declaration from a contractor describing the work performed and the resulting costs. Brim disputed the scope of the work and the amount of the claimed expenses. Following proceedings in the district court, a judgment was entered requiring Brim to pay the cleanup costs, attorney fees, and costs. Brim appeals. II. ANALYSIS Pro se litigants are not accorded any special consideration simply because they are representing themselves and are not excused from adhering to procedural rules. Michalk v. Michalk, 148 Idaho 224, 229, 220 P.3d 580, 585 (2009). Idaho Appellate Rule 35(a) states that an appealing party’s brief “shall contain the following divisions under appropriate headings” then lists several divisions. The failure of an appellant to include an issue in the statement of issues required by I.A.R. 35(a)(4) will eliminate consideration of the issue from appeal. Kugler v. Drown, 119 Idaho 687,691, 809 P.2d 1166, 1170 (Ct. App. 1991). This rule may be relaxed, however, where the issue is argued in the briefing and citation to authority is provided. Everhart v. Wash. Cnty. Rd. & Bridge Dep 't, 130 Idaho 273,274,939 P.2d 849,850 (1997). Further, this Court has made clea