429 P.3d 129
Idaho2018Background
- The State initiated the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) to adjudicate Basin 37 water rights; first- and second-round statutory notice procedures were used and supplemented by SRBA Administrative Order 1 (A.O.1) and monthly Docket Sheets.
- Gary and Glenna Eden purchased land in 1992 that included Water Right No. 37-864 (priority 1896); no SRBA claim for 37-864 was filed on IDWR forms with the required fee.
- IDWR mailed second-round notice for unclaimed water rights in May 2005; Glenna Eden signed the certified-mail return receipt acknowledging delivery.
- The SRBA Final Unified Decree (Aug. 26, 2014) and a Closure Order listed 37-864 as unclaimed and therefore disallowed; Edens were informed their water delivery would cease in 2015.
- In Sept. 2016 (post-decree) Edens moved to file a late claim and to set aside the decree under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) (void for lack of due process) and 60(b)(6) (unique and compelling circumstances); the SRBA court denied relief and the Edens appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Edens) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment is void under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(4) because second-round service was not received or was defective | Edens say they did not receive adequate notice of unclaimed status or the second-round notice was facially defective | State says second-round statutory notice was properly sent and received (certified-receipt) and complies with Idaho statute/A.O.1 | Court held Edens received adequate second-round service; 60(b)(4) relief denied |
| Whether Rule 55(b)(2) required personal 3-day notice before disallowal as a default judgment | Edens claim they had appeared and thus were entitled to Rule 55 default-notice protections | State says disallowal is statutory loss for failure to claim, not a Rule 55 default judgment | Court held disallowal is statutory, not a Rule 55 default; personal 3-day notice not required |
| Whether I.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) unique and compelling circumstances warrant relief | Edens argue good-faith attempt to file (sent unknown docs), mistaken belief IDWR accepted claim, seniority of the right, and minimal prejudice to others | State emphasizes long delay, failure to follow statutorily required filing/fee, finality of adjudication, and prejudice to junior rights in a water-short basin | Court held Edens did not show unique/compelling circumstances; relief under 60(b)(6) denied (abuse-of-discretion standard) |
| Whether Motion to file a late claim should be granted after 60(b) relief denied; whether State gets appellate attorney fees | Edens: late filing should be allowed if decree vacated | State: decree stands; permitting late claim prejudices many decreed rights; seeks fees | Court denied late-claim motion (no 60(b) relief). Costs to State on appeal; attorney fees denied under I.C. § 12-121 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re SRBA Case No. 39576 (Basin-Wide Issue 3), 128 Idaho 246 (1995) (upholding special SRBA notice procedures and need for tailored rules)
- Lu Ranching Co. v. United States, 138 Idaho 606 (2003) (SRBA notice procedures meet due process given practical limits on personal service)
- Jim & Maryann Plane Family Tr. v. Skinner, 157 Idaho 927 (2015) (judgment-void questions are questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983) (interdependence of water rights in adjudication; one right affects others)
- State v. Nelson, 131 Idaho 12 (1998) (importance of finality in water rights adjudications)