497 P.3d 200
Idaho2021Background:
- Pheasant Run VI (owned by Robert & Nancy Drinkard) borrowed from Alpha in 2007, secured by a deed of trust; foreclosure produced a large deficiency.
- Alpha obtained an Original Judgment on Feb. 23, 2010 for $1,170,101.95; it was renewed on Feb. 12, 2015 to $1,510,663.35 but the 2015 renewal was not recorded.
- Alpha moved on Feb. 10, 2020 to renew the judgment under Idaho Code § 10-1111 for $1,842,509.59 (accrued interest); the Drinkards objected, arguing the original judgment had expired and the 2015 renewal was unrecorded and thus not renewabl e.
- The district court found the judgment unsatisfied, that Alpha’s motion was filed within the statutory period (five years under the statute in effect when the case began), and that recording was not required to renew; it granted renewal on Sept. 23, 2020.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the renewal, declined to consider constitutional and extinguishment arguments not raised below, denied Alpha’s motion to strike under the wrong procedural rule, and sanctioned Drinkards’ counsel under I.A.R. 11.2(a), awarding Alpha fees and costs against counsel personally.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a money judgment must be recorded before it can be renewed under I.C. § 10-1111 | Alpha: Renewal is proper so long as the motion is filed within the statutory timeframe after the last judgment or renewal; recording is not a prerequisite | Drinkards: The 2015 renewal, being unrecorded, could not serve as basis for further renewal and the Original Judgment had expired | Held: Recording is not required to renew a judgment; renewal is timely if the motion is filed within the statutory period measured from the date of the last judgment/renewal (affirmed) |
| Whether the Court should consider takings and judicial-extinguishment claims raised on appeal | Alpha: (opposed consideration) | Drinkards: Raised takings and AgStar-based extinguishment arguments on appeal | Held: Not considered—issues were not preserved below and therefore forfeited |
| Whether Alpha’s motion to strike portions of Drinkards’ brief is proper on appeal | Alpha: Move to strike background facts as repetitive/scandalous | Drinkards: Facts are necessary to show case origins | Held: Motion denied—wrong procedural vehicle (I.R.C.P. 12(f) is inapt for appellate briefs) |
| Whether sanctions/attorney fees are warranted for the appeal | Alpha: Requested admonishment and fees for mischaracterizations; sought fees as prevailing party | Drinkards: Sought fees too | Held: Alpha prevailed but failed to properly brief a statutory fee request; however, the Court imposed sanctions and awarded Alpha fees and costs against Drinkards’ counsel personally under I.A.R. 11.2(a) for a frivolous, rule-violating appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Grazer v. Jones, 154 Idaho 58 (distinguishes judgment from judgment lien; renewal period measured from judgment date; renewed judgment must be re-recorded to create a lien)
- Smith v. Smith II, 164 Idaho 46 (a judgment need not be recorded to be valid)
- Smith v. Smith I, 131 Idaho 800 (§ 10-1111 provides for renewal of judgments, not only recorded liens)
- Bach v. Dawson, 152 Idaho 237 (renewal allowed for unsatisfied judgments whether or not a lien was recorded)
- ABK, LLC v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 166 Idaho 92 (issues not raised below are not considered on appeal)
- Bergeman v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 164 Idaho 498 (I.A.R. 11.2 sanctions authority and standards)