Mc Lean v. Cheyovich Family Trust
153 Idaho 425
| Idaho | 2012Background
- Dawson and McLean filed a quiet-title/partition suit over the Peacock Parcel in 2001 in Idaho Teton County; the parcel was allegedly held by four one-fourth interests by different trusts/entities.
- Bach sought to answer for the Cheyovich and Bach trusts and later filed his own Intervention claiming Targhee Powder ownership and at least a one-fourth Peacock Parcel interest.
- A 2007 district court judgment quieted Bach’s three-fourth interest and Cheyovich’s one-fourth, authored by Bach, with Dawson not appealing the default.
- Dawson obtained a 60(b) relief motion on remand; the district court issued a Second Amended Judgment—quieting title and taking judicial notice of four undivided one-fourth interests.
- Bach appealed challenging standing, jurisdiction, and various other issues; the appellate court remanded and ultimately affirmed the Second Amended Judgment, awarding Dawson appellate fees.
- The court held that Bach’s arguments were largely waived or frivolous; Dawson awarded attorney’s fees on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to file Rule 60(b) motion | Dawson had standing for relief from judgment | Bach contends lack of standing due to mootness | Dawson had standing to seek relief under Rule 60(b) |
| District court jurisdiction to grant Rule 60(b) relief | Court had authority to modify via 60(b) on remand | Judgment was final and moot | Court had jurisdiction to grant relief and enter Second Amended Judgment |
| Waiver of issues on appeal | Bach raised no coherent issues; many arguments waived | Dawson argues Bach’s claims are frivolous | Majority of Bach's claims waived; only some preserved for review |
| Attorney’s fees on appeal | Dawson entitled to fees under I.C. § 12-121; frivolous conduct by Bach | Bach not prevailing party; self-representation limits fees | Dawson awarded attorney’s fees on appeal; Bach denied fees for himself |
Key Cases Cited
- Dawson v. Cheyovich Family Trust, 149 Idaho 375 (Idaho 2010) (remand on Rule 60(b) relief; reaffirmed standing issue; related holdings)
- Waller v. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, 146 Idaho 234 (Idaho 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Miller v. Haller, 129 Idaho 345 (Idaho 1996) (unique and compelling circumstances required for relief)
- Maynard v. Nguyen, 152 Idaho 724 (Idaho 2011) (merits of meritorious defense under Rule 60(b))
- Jorgensen v. Coppedge, 145 Idaho 524 (Idaho 2008) (requirement that arguments be supported by authority)