Page v. Pasquali, 150 Idaho 150

Pages purchased property in Placerville, Idaho in 1995 and assumed a promissory note for $48,919.61 secured by a Deed of Trust.
Note, dated August 10, 1994, accrued 8% interest with monthly payments of $366.88 and permitted prepayments.
Pasquali (beneficiary) received $21,432.03 insurance settlement payment and Rupe (escrow/servicing) received $21,432.03 to apply to the Note; $8,000 went to Pages.
Rupe applied $201.80 of the payment to due interest and the remaining $21,228.32 to reduce principal.
In 2004, with notices of default for nonpayment, tax failure, and lack of insurance, Pages filed bankruptcy which was dismissed; in 2005 trustee’s sale occurred.
District court granted summary judgment for Pasquali and Rupe; Pages appeal the grant and denial of reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
How should the insurance proceeds be applied to the note?	Pageargued the Payment should reduce fifty-eight future payments.	Rupe must apply funds first to interest, then to principal per Note terms.	Yes; funds applied to interest first, then principal; default remains as other grounds apply.
Did Pages default on the note based on more than nonpayment?	Default was not material; payments were not due or misapplied.	Default also for tax payments and insurance lapse; unappealed by Pages.	Default exists on multiple grounds; only nonpayment contested on appeal, but other grounds upheld.
Whether the Pages are entitled to overturn the summary judgment on alternative grounds?	Alternative grounds should negate summary judgment.	Alternative grounds were properly granted; no error in summary judgment.	Alternative grounds affirmed; judgment in favor of Pasquali and Rupe upheld.
Whether respondents are entitled to attorney fees on appeal?	Fees not warranted; appeal not frivolous.	Fees appropriate under I.C. §§ 12-117, 12-121, 12-123 due to frivolous appeal.	Award of attorney fees to respondents affirmed under I.C. § 12-121.

Vavold v. State, 148 Idaho 44 (Idaho 2009) (standard of reviewing summary judgment;)
Elliott v. Darwin Neibaur Farms, 138 Idaho 774 (Idaho 2003) (contract ambiguity and plain meaning governs interpretation)