374 P.3d 551
Idaho2016Background
- Charles and Donna Nickerson borrowed $285,000 in 2002 and granted a deed of trust; the note was assigned between various entities and PHH Mortgage acquired the note in 2010. As of December 1, 2013, the debt totalled about $340,339.84.
- PHH sued the Nickersons for judicial foreclosure on January 10, 2011; the Nickersons filed answers, counterclaims, and a third-party complaint against J.P. Morgan Chase asserting multiple federal and state claims (including fraud and RESPA/FDCPA/ FCRA claims).
- The district court granted Chase summary judgment on the third-party claims and, after two rounds of summary-judgment briefing, granted PHH summary judgment on foreclosure because the Nickersons failed to present admissible evidence creating a genuine issue whether they were in default.
- The district court struck substantial portions of Charles Nickerson’s affidavit and denied the Nickersons’ motions to continue, to amend pleadings to add fraud, multiple motions for reconsideration, and Rule 60(b) relief (mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, new evidence, fraud, misconduct).
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed: it held the Nickersons failed to produce admissible evidence to defeat summary judgment, the court did not abuse discretion on continuance/amendment/reconsideration/Rule 60(b) rulings, and found the appeal frivolous as to Chase, awarding appellate fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nickersons) | Defendant's Argument (PHH/Chase) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PHH had standing and whether summary judgment on foreclosure was improper | PHH lacked standing, documents were fraudulent, deed/note invalid, and no default existed | PHH provided admissible evidence of ownership/amounts due; Nickersons produced only conclusory assertions and a largely-stricken affidavit | Court: Nickersons failed to produce admissible evidence creating genuine issue; summary judgment for PHH affirmed |
| Whether district court should have continued the summary-judgment hearing / allowed telephonic hearing | Needed continuance for preparation and objected to telephonic hearing | Hearing notice allowed telephonic appearance; Nickersons appeared and argued by phone | Court: No abuse of discretion; even if error, any error was harmless (no substantial rights affected) |
| Whether court erred by not instructing/allowing amendment to plead fraud at summary judgment | Should have been instructed to amend pleadings under IRCP 15/15(b) and McKee Bros. | Fraud was not pled with particularity; no admissible evidence of fraud; proposed amendment untimely and would be prejudicial/futile | Court: No error—fraud not pled, no evidence, and court reasonably declined to require amendment given circumstances |
| Whether denial of Rule 60(b) relief (mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, new evidence, fraud, misconduct) was erroneous | Various procedural and substantive errors, attorney deception, newly discovered evidence, fraud on court, deposition irregularities | Claims rehashed prior arguments, evidence was not new or admissible, no factual showing of fraud or misconduct justifying relief | Court: No abuse of discretion; Rule 60(b) relief properly denied; many claims were legal errors or previously litigated |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Cambridge Joint Sch. Dist. No. 432, 88 P.3d 772 (Idaho 2004) (standard of review for summary judgment appeals)
- Edged In Stone, Inc. v. Nw. Power Sys., LLC, 321 P.3d 726 (Idaho 2014) (IRCP 56 summary judgment standards and construing facts for nonmoving party)
- Grabicki v. City of Lewiston, 302 P.3d 26 (Idaho 2013) (nonmoving party must produce affirmative evidence; conclusory assertions insufficient)
- McKee Bros., Ltd. v. Mesa Equip., Inc., 628 P.2d 1036 (Idaho 1981) (district court may condition denial of summary judgment on leave to amend pleadings)
- Berg v. Kendall, 212 P.3d 1001 (Idaho 2009) (Rule 60(b)(1) relief applies to mistakes of fact, not law)