Alan Golub v. Kirk-Scott, LTD
342 P.3d 893
Idaho2015Background
- Alan and Marilyn Golub obtained a $941,000 default judgment (2009) against Geraldine Kirk‑Hughes, KHD, and others for an unpaid real‑estate commission and recorded the judgment lien after KHD’s bankruptcy was dismissed.
- Kirk‑Scott, Ltd. (KS) claimed a 2004 deed of trust from KHD giving KS a prior security interest, but the deed of trust was not recorded in Kootenai County until September 17, 2010.
- KS did not appear as a secured creditor in KHD’s bankruptcy proceedings, and KS did not file a bankruptcy claim.
- Golubs sued in 2013 for a declaratory judgment establishing priority of their recorded judgment lien over KS’s purported earlier (but unrecorded) deed of trust.
- The district court granted Golubs summary judgment, denied KS’s motions to vacate the 2009 default judgment, found KS’s 2010 recording invalid (improper acknowledgement), and imposed Rule 11 sanctions on KS; KS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Golub) | Defendant's Argument (KS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the 2009 default judgment was void and should be vacated under I.R.C.P. 60(b) | Judgment was valid: complaint and affidavit gave notice of $941,000 claim; interest awards lawful; Rule 55 and 54(c) satisfied. | Judgment was void or infirm because it exceeded the demand (Rule 54(c)), lacked sufficient affidavit/detail under Rule 55(b)(1), and lacked a signed Rule 54(b) certificate. | Court affirmed denial of 60(b); judgment was not void, affidavit/motion complied with Rule 55, and Rule 54(b) certificate issue did not invalidate the judgment. |
| 2. Whether Golubs’ recorded judgment lien has priority over KS’s earlier but unrecorded deed of trust under I.C. § 55‑606 | Judgment liens are a distinct category; the "good faith and valuable consideration" requirements do not apply to acquiring a lien by recording a valid judgment; priority is determined by who records first. | KS argued § 55‑606 requires a subsequent encumbrancer to have acquired title or lien "in good faith and for valuable consideration," so KS’s earlier (alleged) interest should prevail. | Court held the good‑faith/valuable‑consideration requirements do not apply to judgment liens; because Golubs recorded before KS, Golubs have priority. |
| 3. Validity of KS’s 2010 recording (acknowledgment) and constructive notice | Golubs contended KS’s deed was not properly acknowledged/recorded and thus could not impart constructive notice. | KS argued the deed was recorded by the county and, if defective under Idaho law, it was still effective (relying on Mollendorf) and/or properly acknowledged under Nevada law. | Court found KS conceded no proper acknowledgment and failed to show compliance with Nevada law; the 2010 recording was invalid for recording/acknowledgment purposes, so it did not defeat Golubs’ prior recorded judgment lien. |
| 4. Whether Rule 11 sanctions and denial of KS’s motion to amend/alter were improper; entitlement to attorney fees | Golubs asserted KS’s post‑judgment motion improperly sought reconsideration of a Rule 60(b) denial, violated procedural rules, and lacked foundation—warranting sanctions. | KS argued its motion fell under Rule 59 grounds (amendment of judgment) and its filings were in good faith; court biased. | Court held sanctions were proper: KS’s motion improperly sought reconsideration of Rule 60(b) relief (prohibited), lacked Idaho authority, and signing counsel failed reasonable inquiry; abuse‑of‑discretion standard not met. KS not entitled to fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conner v. Hodges, 157 Idaho 19 (2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Johnson v. Hartford, 99 Idaho 134 (1978) (interpretation of I.R.C.P. 54(c) and notice of amount demanded)
- Hayes v. Towles, 95 Idaho 208 (1973) (default judgment exceeding complaint demand is void to the extent of excess)
- Gordon v. Gordon, 118 Idaho 804 (1990) (void‑judgment concept narrowly construed for finality)
- State v. Yzaguirre, 144 Idaho 471 (2007) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Mollendorf v. Derry, 95 Idaho 1 (1972) (acknowledgment required for recording; defects affect recording but may not void underlying deed)
- Slack v. Anderson, 140 Idaho 38 (2004) (Rule 11 sanctions are discretionary)
- Campbell v. Kildew, 141 Idaho 640 (2005) (adequacy of counsel investigation as Rule 11 standard)