# Bethlahmy v. Bechtel

> Idaho Supreme Court · June 14, 1966 · 91 Idaho 55

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538714

## Case

- **Full name:** Nedavia BETHLAHMY and Evelyn F. Bethlahmy, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Everett BECHTEL and A. L. Modin Dba Modin Realty & Insurance Co., Defendants-Respondents
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 14, 1966
- **Citations:** 91 Idaho 55; 415 P.2d 698; 1966 Ida. LEXIS 234
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Spear
- **Judges:** Taylor, Spear, McFadden, McQuade, Smith
- **Cited by:** 77 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538714

## Opinion text

SPEAR, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion, i. e., that the action should be remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the issues of constructive fraud and/or implied warranty of fitness for habitation. In my opinion, however, these principles are so akin to fraud, the burden of proving such constructive fraud or the breach of such implied warranty should be the same as that required of the plaintiff in an action on express fraud. In other words, the plaintiffs should be required to prove the breach or the elements of constructive fraud by clear and convincing evidence, rather than merely a preponderance of the evidence. See Chester B. Brown Co. v. Goff, 89 Idaho 170 , 403 P. 2d 855 and cases cited therein, p. 175; Nelson v. Hoff, 70 Idaho 354 , 218 P.2d 345 ; Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 84 Idaho 485 , 373 P.2d 559 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9538714. Public record. Not legal advice.