Bergeman v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 164 Idaho 498

Property originally mortgaged by Karen Hansen; loan later assigned to U.S. Bank with Select Portfolio Servicing (Select) as servicer. Hansen died in 2006; her son Darin Bergeman took possession and received an executor's deed in 2012 but did not assume the note personally.
Bergeman made payments credited to the loan for a time but stopped around July 2015; Notice of Default recorded Sept. 2016 and Trustee's Notice of Sale issued Oct. 2016.
Select continued sending statements to Hansen’s estate showing arrearage; at foreclosure sale on Feb. 23, 2017, Mohamed Elabed purchased the property.
Bergeman sued Select, Elabed, and others (misrepresentation, negligent supervision, trespass, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress). Select and Elabed moved to dismiss under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).
The district court granted the dismissals and denied Bergeman’s motion to consolidate this case with a pending eviction action; Bergeman appealed.
The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed dismissal and denial of consolidation, and sanctioned Bergeman’s counsel under Idaho Appellate Rule 11.2 by awarding appellees’ appellate attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) was erroneous	Bergeman generally attacked the district court’s findings and said the court misapplied standards and ignored facts	Select and Elabed argued pleadings failed to state claims and dismissal was proper	Waived/forfeited by Bergeman for lack of cogent argument; court declined to address merits and affirmed dismissal
Whether the district court abused discretion in denying consolidation under I.R.C.P. 42(a)	Bergeman contended the cases should have been consolidated (largely asserted court bias/‘headache’ rationale)	Defendants argued no common questions of law/fact warrant consolidation and denial was within discretion	Affirmed: Bergeman failed to show abuse of discretion or prejudice from denial
Whether appellate sanctions/attorney fees are appropriate	Bergeman sought fees as prevailing party	Select and Elabed sought fees arguing appeal was frivolous/unfounded	Court awarded appellees appellate fees as sanctions against Bergeman’s counsel under I.A.R. 11.2 (not 12-121)
Whether the appeal preserved issues for review	Bergeman relied on lengthy briefing but did not apply law to facts or cite authority in argument section	Defendants contended issues were waived for lack of supported argument	Court held most claims waived under I.A.R. 35(a)(6) and precedent requiring cogent argument; did not search record for error

Savage v. Scandit Inc., 163 Idaho 637, 417 P.3d 234 (2018) (standard for reviewing I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Hull v. Giesler, 163 Idaho 247, 409 P.3d 827 (2018) (issues mentioned only in passing without authority are not considered)
Jones v. Jones, 117 Idaho 621, 790 P.2d 914 (1990) (consolidation under I.R.C.P. 42(a) reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 421 P.3d 187 (2018) (four-part test for reviewing claimed abuse of discretion)
Cedillo v. Farmers Ins. Co., 163 Idaho 131, 408 P.3d 886 (2017) (appellant must show prejudice/substantial right affected)
PHH Mortg. v. Nickerson, 160 Idaho 388, 374 P.3d 551 (2016) (standards for awarding fees under Idaho Code § 12-121 on frivolous appeals)
Akers v. Mortensen, 160 Idaho 286, 371 P.3d 340 (2016) (sanctions under I.A.R. 11.2 may mirror § 12-121 grounds)
Hartgrave v. City of Twin Falls, 163 Idaho 347, 413 P.3d 747 (2018) (I.A.R. 11.2 sanctions appropriate for frivolous filings)