Leon Phillips v. Roy Jacobson
2013 Ida. LEXIS 113
Idaho2013Background
- Between 2005 and 2007, Blazier-Henry executed promissory notes to Chance secured by a deed of trust on a small Bonner County parcel; she defaulted on payments.
- Chance obtained a default judgment for $72,667.25 with late fees and interest, and a writ of execution set the total at about $87,211.07.
- A sheriff’s sale was held on June 2, 2009; Roy Jacobson bought the property for $1,000 while Chance did not bid or attend.
- Chance later moved to set aside the sale; a stipulation in 2009 set aside the sale, but Jacobson moved to quash, and the district court initially quashed that order in 2009.
- A 2010 hearing led to an order setting aside the sheriff’s sale, which the district court later amended; in 2011 a final judgment awarded Jacobson monetary relief; on appeal the district court’s sale-setting order was reversed and the case remanded.
- The Idaho Supreme Court ultimately held that the district court abused its discretion by setting aside the sale, and recomputed relief channels, with Jacobson prevailing on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether gross inadequacy of price alone justifies setting aside a sheriff’s sale | Chance contends gross inadequacy plus slight circumstances suffice | Jacobson argues that Idaho standard requires gross inadequacy with some additional irregularity | No; gross inadequacy alone is not sufficient to set aside the sale. |
| Whether the district court properly followed Idaho standards for relief from sheriff’s sale | Chance relies on Gibbs and “shocks the conscience” | Jacobson contends Gibbs is inapplicable and the court should apply Curts/Gaskill framework | The district court erred by adopting a Gibbs-like standard; the proper standard requires gross inadequacy plus slight additional circumstances, which were not present. |
| Whether Chance’s cross-appeal regarding the redemption-extend remedy affects the decision | Chance argues the court offered alternative relief that was not appealed | Jacobson claims only one remedy was properly appealed | Cross-appeal without merit; the remedies were not both operative on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbs v. Claar, 58 Idaho 510 (Idaho 1938) (gross inadequacy plus slight circumstances needed; not applicable here)
- Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Curts, 45 Idaho 414 (Idaho 1927) (gross inadequacy of consideration with slight additional circumstances suffices)
- Gaskill v. Neal, 77 Idaho 428 (Idaho 1956) (general rule: mere inadequacy not enough; gross inadequacy plus slight additional circumstances may justify relief)
- Suchan v. Suchan, 113 Idaho 102 (Idaho 1986) (misunderstanding of law not a slight additional circumstance; failure to bid may hurt creditor's position; remedy depends on facts)
- Tudor Engineering Co. v. Mouw, 109 Idaho 573 (Idaho 1985) (equitable redemption when sale price grossly inadequate and notice deficient)