Kelso v. Applington

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court held that summary judgment was improper because conflicting testimony from material witnesses created a genuine credibility issue concerning whether Kelly intended Linda to receive the account funds by survivorship. The court also held that the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard applicable at trial does not alter the traditional summary-judgment standard or permit weighing evidence at that stage. The court reversed and remanded for trial, vacated the attorney-fee award, and directed the district court to reconsider fees after final adjudication.