423 P.3d 454
Idaho2018Background
- In 2002 Charles and Donna Nickerson purchased ~50 acres in Clearwater County and executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust; the loan changed hands and PHH ultimately filed for judicial foreclosure in 2011.
- The Nickersons asserted counterclaims and third-party claims against PHH and J.P. Morgan Chase alleging various federal and state causes of action and sought punitive damages; summary judgment proceedings followed.
- The district court granted summary judgment to PHH (and to Chase on third-party claims) finding the Nickersons failed to produce admissible evidence of non-default; this Court affirmed in PHH Mortgage v. Nickerson (Nickerson I).
- After this Court’s decision, the district court lifted the stay, entered an order of sale and decree of foreclosure, and denied the Nickersons’ post-appeal motions (sanctions, quash execution/judgment, vacate/amend sale decree, and reconsideration).
- The Nickersons appealed again, largely re-arguing issues decided in Nickerson I and raising several new contentions; the Supreme Court applied the law-of-the-case doctrine, rejected re-litigation, and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court should have relieved the Nickersons from final judgment (Rule 60) | Nickersons: alleged fraud, mistake, counsel withdrawal, new evidence of lack of standing/default justify relief | PHH: summary judgment and prior appellate ruling foreclose relitigation; no admissible new factual/legal basis | Court: Denied; motion was re-litigation of matters resolved in Nickerson I and lacked supporting evidence; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether sanctions should be imposed on PHH | Nickersons: PHH made false/misleading statements warranting sanctions | PHH: prior appellate affirmance and lack of factual/legal basis defeat sanctions | Court: Denied; Nickersons’ allegations recycled and unsupported; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether order of sale/decree should be vacated or amended because the Property was two parcels | Nickersons: Property comprised two parcels and should be sold separately | PHH: No record evidence supports parcel-splitting; documents submitted on appeal not part of record | Court: Denied; Nickersons offered no record proof and cannot supplement on appeal |
| Whether Nickersons are entitled to exclusive possession during one-year redemption | Nickersons: statutes (11-310, 11-401–403) entitle them to possession during redemption | PHH: purchaser obtains rights after sale; statutes and precedent transfer possessory rights to purchaser; issue ripe despite PHH not seeking possession | Court: Denied; statutory text and cases show purchaser’s rights post-sale and redeeming party is not entitled to exclusive possession during redemption |
| Whether issues raised for first time on appeal (credit bid by non-PHH purchaser; PHH-state settlement) are reviewable | Nickersons: new arguments require reversal/intervention | PHH: issues were not preserved below | Court: Not considered; appellate waiver rule bars new issues raised first on appeal |
| Whether PHH is entitled to appellate attorney’s fees under I.C. § 12-121 | PHH: appeal was frivolous and without foundation (re-litigating prior holdings) | Nickersons: appeal pursued pro se with asserted grounds | Court: Granted fees; concluded appeal was frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation |
Key Cases Cited
- PHH Mortgage v. Nickerson, 160 Idaho 388 (Idaho 2016) (prior appellate decision resolving summary judgment and Rule 60 issues)
- Bettwieser v. N.Y. Irrigation Dist., 154 Idaho 317 (Idaho 2014) (appellate rule requiring particularity and authority; general attacks waived)
- ParkWest Homes, LLC v. Barnson, 154 Idaho 678 (Idaho 2013) (law-of-the-case doctrine explained)
- Jonsson v. Oxborrow, 141 Idaho 635 (Idaho 2005) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) factual findings)
- Acker v. Mader, 94 Idaho 94 (Idaho 1971) (purchaser at foreclosure sale obtains debtor’s rights; redeeming party’s possession limited)
- Eastern Idaho Loan & Trust Co. v. Blomberg, 62 Idaho 497 (Idaho 1941) (analysis of decree authorizing possession after sheriff’s deed and redemption period)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 144 Idaho 710 (Idaho 2007) (fees under I.C. § 12-121 available where appeal frivolous)