Losee v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust, 454 P.3d 525

In 2003 the Losees borrowed from New Century; the loan was secured by a deed of trust and New Century assigned the note and deed of trust to Deutsche Bank (recorded April 7, 2003).
The Losees later defaulted; Deutsche Bank initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings and recorded notices of default and trustee sale dates in 2011 and again in 2012–2014 (sales were delayed by TROs and the Losees’ bankruptcy filings and loss-mitigation requests).
In August 2015 the Losees (pro se) sued New Century and Deutsche Bank alleging breach of contract, slander of title, wrongful foreclosure (against New Century), and seeking declaratory relief; Deutsche Bank moved for summary judgment in March 2017.
The Losees filed a 41‑page “Chain of Title Analysis” produced by private investigators (unsworn) and relied on an earlier sworn affidavit of Joseph Esquivel; the report was not an affidavit and contained out‑of‑court assertions.
The district court granted Deutsche Bank’s summary judgment, concluding New Century’s assignment did not breach the deed of trust, title was not slandered, and the Chain of Title Analysis was inadmissible hearsay (the Esquivel affidavit, by contrast, met ICivP 56(c)(4)).
On appeal the Losees argued the district court improperly excluded the Chain of Title Analysis as hearsay and failed to rule on their wrongful foreclosure and declaratory‑judgment claims; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by excluding the Chain of Title Analysis from summary‑judgment consideration as hearsay	The report is part of the same material as Esquivel’s affidavit and therefore should be considered; it creates genuine issues of fact	The Chain is an unsworn out‑of‑court report offered for the truth of its assertions and does not fit any hearsay exception	The report was inadmissible hearsay and properly excluded; the Esquivel affidavit was admissible under I.R.C.P. 56(c)(4)
Whether the court failed to dispose of the Losees’ wrongful‑foreclosure and declaratory‑judgment claims	The court omitted ruling on wrongful foreclosure and declaratory relief, so judgment is incomplete	Wrongful‑foreclosure claim was alleged only against New Century; declaratory relief was subsumed by dismissal of claims against Deutsche Bank	No error: wrongful‑foreclosure was not asserted against Deutsche Bank; declaratory claim was effectively resolved by dismissal in favor of Deutsche Bank

State v. Stanfield, 347 P.3d 175 (2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for admitting hearsay exceptions)
State v. Trevino, 980 P.2d 552 (definition of hearsay)
State v. Herrera, 364 P.3d 1180 (hearsay generally inadmissible)
Taft v. Jumbo Foods, Inc., 314 P.3d 193 (affidavits may be considered on summary judgment if they meet rule requirements)
Gem State Ins. Co. v. Hutchinson, 175 P.3d 172 (only evidence admissible at trial may be considered on summary judgment)
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 421 P.3d 187 (factors for reviewing discretionary decisions)
Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 868 P.2d 1224 (trial court discretion to consider affidavits on summary judgment)
Salmon River Sportsman Camps, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 544 P.2d 306 (summary judgment standards and use of affidavits)