The Idaho Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling Thursday in *Camp Magical Moments, Cancer Camp for Kids, Inc. v. Walsh* (Idaho 2026), a complex property dispute between a children's cancer charity and former donors. The court affirmed parts of the district court's judgment while vacating others, remanding the case for additional proceedings consistent with its opinion.
The dispute centers on buildings owned by Camp Magical Moments that were located on real property owned by Tom and Ann Walsh. Camp Magical Moments, an Idaho nonprofit corporation that operates cancer camps for children, sued the Walshes seeking damages for the difference between the appraised value of its buildings and the amount the charity received following the sale of the property.
The case arose from what appears to be a deteriorating relationship between the charity and the Walsh family, who had previously supported the organization. The exact nature of their original arrangement regarding the property is not detailed in the available court documents, but the dispute escalated to litigation over property valuation and disposition.
After a bench trial in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District in Bonneville County, Judge Bruce L. Pickett entered judgment for Camp Magical Moments on multiple claims. The district court found the Walshes liable for constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty related to their handling of the property transaction.
The trial court awarded Camp Magical Moments $309,506.84 in damages, representing the difference between what the charity believed its buildings were worth and what it actually received. However, the district court applied principles of comparative negligence and the duty to mitigate damages, reducing the award by 50 percent to $154,753.42.
The district court's decision to cut the damages award in half suggests the trial judge found that Camp Magical Moments bore some responsibility for the losses it suffered. The comparative negligence finding indicates the charity may have contributed to the circumstances that led to the reduced value of its property interest.
Both parties appealed different aspects of the district court's ruling. Camp Magical Moments served as the appellant and cross-respondent, while the Walshes took the role of respondents and cross-appellants. The district court had denied attorney fees to both parties, which may have been part of the appeals.
Following the district court judgment entered on May 24, 2023, Camp Magical Moments took steps to collect the award by registering the judgment in North Carolina on June 14, 2023, and received payment, though the full details of collection are not provided in the available court records.
The legal teams involved include Smith, Driscoll & Associates representing Camp Magical Moments, with attorney Buster Joe Driscoll arguing before the Idaho Supreme Court. The Walshes were represented by Carey Law, with attorney Donald F. Carey presenting oral arguments.
Chief Justice Bevan authored the Supreme Court opinion, which was filed February 6, 2026. The Idaho Supreme Court's decision to affirm some aspects while vacating others suggests the justices found merit in portions of both parties' arguments.
The partial vacation and remand indicates unresolved issues that require further proceedings in the district court. Property valuation disputes often involve complex appraisal questions and legal standards that may need additional factual development or legal analysis at the trial court level.
This case highlights the potential complications that can arise when nonprofit organizations have property arrangements with donors or supporters. The dispute demonstrates how relationships between charities and benefactors can deteriorate, leading to complex litigation over property rights and valuations.
For Camp Magical Moments, the mixed ruling means continued uncertainty about the full extent of recovery for what it claims were improperly valued buildings. The charity operates camps for children with cancer, a mission that requires stable facilities and financial resources.
The Walshes, meanwhile, achieved partial success in challenging aspects of the district court's ruling, though they remain liable for the underlying claims of constructive fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The remand proceedings will likely focus on resolving the specific issues identified by the Idaho Supreme Court. Property valuation cases often require detailed expert testimony and analysis of market conditions, construction costs, and other factors affecting real estate values.
This decision adds to Idaho case law on property disputes involving nonprofit organizations and may provide guidance for similar conflicts between charities and property owners. The mixed nature of the ruling suggests courts will carefully balance the interests of charitable organizations against property owners' rights in such disputes.