Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 5-218 (2026)

Statutory liabilities, trespass, trover, replevin, and fraud.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Statutory liabilities, trespass, trover, replevin, and fraud.

Within three (3) years:

1. An action upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture. The cause of action in favor of the state of Idaho or any political subdivision thereof, upon a surety bond or undertaking provided for or required by statute shall not be deemed to have accrued against any surety on such bond or undertaking until the discovery by the state of Idaho or any political subdivision thereof of the facts constituting the liability.

2. An action for trespass upon real property.

3. An action for taking, detaining or injuring any goods or chattels, including actions for the specific recovery of personal property.

4. An action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake. The cause of action in such case not to be deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 145 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1933–2026 · leading case: McCoy v. Lyons, 820 P.2d 360 (Idaho 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McCoy v. Lyons, 820 P.2d 360 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 40× “[9] In addition, I.C. § 5-218(4), the statute of limitations for fraud, was not applied to the separately alleged acts of fraud.”

DOE(s) v. Boy Scouts of Am., 356 P.3d 1049 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 22× “” Idaho Code § 5-218 (4); see also Nancy Lee Mines, 511 P.”

Lincoln Cty. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 632 P.2d 678 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 24× “The district court issued an order denying such motion and filed its certificate indicating that the issue presented a controlling question of law and the Supreme Court review of the otherwise unappealable denial of the motion would obviate lengthy and expensive litigation.”

Witt v. Jones, 722 P.2d 474 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 20× “Therefore, counsel argued, under I.C. § 5-218 the applicable statute of limitations against respondent Mary Jones, in her individual capacity, was three years from discovery of the facts constituting the fraud.”

DBSI/TRI v. v. Bender, 948 P.2d 151 (Idaho 1997). · cites it 22× “The district court determined that the statute of limitations for fraud is governed by I.C. § 5-218 and provides that a cause of action based on fraud must be brought within three years from the later occurrence of the fraud or the time of discovery of the facts sufficient to…”

Ada Cnty. v. Browning, 489 P.3d 443 (Idaho 2021). · cites it 19× “Section 5-218, in relevant part, 7 provides a three-year limitation period on “[a]n action upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture.”

Umphrey v. Sprinkel, 682 P.2d 1247 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 12× “§ 5-219(4), and that this statute with its two-year limitation applies rather than the statute of limitations for fraud, I.C. § 5-218(4), with its three-year limit and accrual upon discovery of the fraud.”

Magic Valley Radiology, PA v. Kolouch, 849 P.2d 107 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 14× “§ 15-3-803(a)(1) (limitation on presentation of claims against a decedent’s estate), the doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), and the statutes of limitation contained in I.C. §§ 5-218(4) (actions for fraud) and 5-224 (actions…”

Brown v. Greenheart, 335 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 10× “The district court’s determination is supported by substantial, competent evidence and is not clearly erroneous.”

Renner v. Edwards, 475 P.2d 530 (Idaho 1970). · cites it 15× “) I.C. § 5-218(4) specifically states that in actions for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake, "The cause of action * * * [is] not to be deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.”

Billings v. Sisters of Mercy of Idaho, 389 P.2d 224 (Idaho 1964). · cites it 12× “2, wherein the legislature has not thus far fixed discovery as the time of accrual of various causes of action by imposition of a conclusive presumption, as it has in certain instances, notably I.C. §§ 5-218 (4), 5-222 and 5-237. While there is some authority for the…”

Farber v. Idaho State Ins. Fund, 272 P.3d 467 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 10× “The district court determined that the gravamen of Farber’s claim sounded in statute and held that the three-year statute of limitation provided by I.C. § 5-218(1) barred all claims *496 that accrued prior to July 21, 2003.”

Show all 145 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 5-218(1) — 15 cases

Lincoln Cty. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., 632 P.2d 678 (Idaho 1981). “The district court issued an order denying such motion and filed its certificate indicating that the issue presented a controlling question of law and the Supreme Court review of the otherwise unappealable denial of the motion would obviate lengthy and expensive litigation.”

Ada Cnty. v. Browning, 489 P.3d 443 (Idaho 2021). “Section 5-218, in relevant part, 7 provides a three-year limitation period on “[a]n action upon a liability created by statute, other than a penalty or forfeiture.”

Farber v. Idaho State Ins. Fund, 272 P.3d 467 (Idaho 2012). “The district court determined that the gravamen of Farber’s claim sounded in statute and held that the three-year statute of limitation provided by I.C. § 5-218(1) barred all claims *496 that accrued prior to July 21, 2003.”

Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 212 P.3d 982 (Idaho 2009).

Hecla Mining Co. v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 697 P.2d 1161 (Idaho 1985).

— Idaho Code § 5-218(2) — 2 cases

Bumgarner v. Bumgarner, 862 P.2d 321 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993).

Axelrod v. Reid Ltd. P'ship (Idaho 2024).

— Idaho Code § 5-218(3) — 10 cases

Wing v. Martin, 688 P.2d 1172 (Idaho 1984).

Salmon Rivers Sportsman Camps, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 544 P.2d 306 (Idaho 1975).

Hibbler v. Fisher, 712 P.2d 708 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985).

State v. Barnes, 859 P.2d 1387 (Idaho 1993).

Corbridge v. Clark Equip. Co., 730 P.2d 1005 (Idaho 1986).

— Idaho Code § 5-218(4) — 39 cases

McCoy v. Lyons, 820 P.2d 360 (Idaho 1991). “[9] In addition, I.C. § 5-218(4), the statute of limitations for fraud, was not applied to the separately alleged acts of fraud.”

DOE(s) v. Boy Scouts of Am., 356 P.3d 1049 (Idaho 2015). “” Idaho Code § 5-218 (4); see also Nancy Lee Mines, 511 P.”

Umphrey v. Sprinkel, 682 P.2d 1247 (Idaho 1983). “§ 5-219(4), and that this statute with its two-year limitation applies rather than the statute of limitations for fraud, I.C. § 5-218(4), with its three-year limit and accrual upon discovery of the fraud.”

Magic Valley Radiology, PA v. Kolouch, 849 P.2d 107 (Idaho 1993). “§ 15-3-803(a)(1) (limitation on presentation of claims against a decedent’s estate), the doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion), and the statutes of limitation contained in I.C. §§ 5-218(4) (actions for fraud) and 5-224 (actions…”

Witt v. Jones, 722 P.2d 474 (Idaho 1986). “Therefore, counsel argued, under I.C. § 5-218 the applicable statute of limitations against respondent Mary Jones, in her individual capacity, was three years from discovery of the facts constituting the fraud.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.