338 P.3d 556
Idaho2014Background
- In 2005 Margaret Butcher and her then-husband borrowed $147,900 secured by a deed of trust; Butcher received the property in their 2009 divorce and later defaulted.
- Wells Fargo, as indorsee of the note, foreclosed; at the 2011 trustee’s sale Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) bought the property with a credit bid and received a trustee’s deed.
- FHLMC filed a post-foreclosure ejectment and restitution action; Butcher appeared pro se, answered, and the magistrate granted FHLMC summary judgment in November 2011.
- Butcher appealed to the district court; following a remand to enter final judgment, the district court affirmed the magistrate in May 2013.
- Butcher appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court raising challenges to the validity of FHLMC’s credit bid, alleged due process violations, and other doctrines (shelter rule, dual-tracking, jurisdiction).
- The Supreme Court affirmed the district court, awarding costs to respondent and finding many issues waived for failure to preserve or to provide authority/evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of FHLMC’s credit bid | Butcher argued Wells Fargo’s failure to record an assignment under Idaho Code §45-1505(1) invalidated FHLMC’s credit bid | FHLMC relied on the trustee’s sale and trustee’s deed showing a valid credit bid purchase | Waived — Butcher failed to preserve or present evidence/authorities in lower courts, so court declined to reach the merits |
| Due process (opportunity to respond) | Butcher contended she didn’t receive FHLMC’s reply in time and was denied a full and fair chance to rebut | FHLMC complied with the court’s schedule; rules do not entitle a respondent to file a response to a reply without leave | Waived and meritless — not raised in district court and no authority/evidence of prejudice; court found no due process violation |
| Right to respond to reply brief / procedural fairness | Butcher asserted ambush and requested ability to file a written response | FHLMC pointed to compliance with scheduling order and I.R.C.P. 56(c) procedure; reply was timely | Rejected — opposing party has no automatic right to respond to a reply; magistrate acted within discretion |
| Shelter rules, dual-tracking, jurisdiction | Butcher asserted these doctrines barred the foreclosure/possession | FHLMC relied on the foreclosure record and trustee’s deed | Waived — insufficient argument and authority presented on appeal; court declined to address these issues |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Doe, 156 Idaho 243, 322 P.3d 976 (2014) (standard for reviewing magistrate findings and appellate procedure)
- Teurlings v. Larson, 156 Idaho 65, 320 P.3d 1224 (2014) (summary judgment standards under I.R.C.P. 56)
- Smith v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 505 F.2d 1248 (9th Cir. 1974) (legal memoranda and oral argument are not evidence in summary-judgment context)
- Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784, 229 P.3d 1146 (2010) (issues not supported by cogent argument or authority are not preserved)
- Bettwieser v. New York Irrigation Dist., 154 Idaho 317, 297 P.3d 1134 (2013) (waiver for failure to provide argument/authority on appeal)