328 P.3d 445
Idaho2014Background
- Pierce filed 2009 suit against McMullen and Highland for alleged foreclosure scam under Idaho CPAs and breach of contract.
- McMullen appeared by filing an answer on behalf of Highland; he was not licensed to practice law in Idaho, making that appearance a nullity.
- Defendants did not appear at trial; court deemed McMullen in default and Pierce planned to present damages evidence.
- Pierce amended his complaint to include punitive damages after a Rule 55(b)(2) hearing; district court later dismissed for lack of liability.
- All allegations in paragraphs 1–33 were admitted by defendants for lack of denial; district court erred by requiring liability proof.
- Court remands for damages determination, awards at least $50,000, and allows appellate attorney fees under I.C. 48-608; attorney fees on appeal awarded to Pierce.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could rely on Rule 55(b)(2) without a default entered. | Pierce | McMullen | District court erred; no default entered against McMullen. |
| Whether liability needed proof given no denial of the amended complaint’s core allegations. | Pierce | McMullen | No liability proof needed; allegations admitted under Rule 8(d). |
| Whether the transaction constituted the sale of services under Idaho CP Act. | Pierce | McMullen | Transaction involved services; CPA applies. |
| Whether Pierce pleaded breach of implied-in-law contract (unjust enrichment) adequately. | Pierce | McMullen | Notice pleading allowed recovery; mislabeled claim allowed; liability proven via admitted allegations. |
| Damages and attorneys’ fees on appeal: scope and award. | Pierce | McMullen | Remand for damages beyond $50,000; appellate fees under I.C. 48-608 awarded to Pierce. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Forest, 129 Idaho 584 (1997) (unjust enrichment and pleading standards guidance)
- Mortensen v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 149 Idaho 437 (2010) (notice pleading and pleading sufficiency)
- Sherwood & Roberts, Inc. v. Riplinger, 103 Idaho 535 (1982) (entry of default versus oral statements' effect)
- Dustin v. Beckstrand, 103 Idaho 780 (1982) (trial in absence of non-appearing party permitted)
- Cook v. Skyline Corp., 135 Idaho 26 (2000) (notice pleading and general pleading standards)
- Meyers v. Hansen, 148 Idaho 283 (2009) (due process and notice requirements for sanctions)