369 P.3d 307
Idaho Ct. App.2016Background
- Gordon T. Lanham died; Judd M. Lanham was appointed personal representative after informal probate.
- Thomas E. Lanham (Appellant) filed petitions including a motion for restraining order (denied) and later a motion for reconsideration after the magistrate granted summary judgment to Judd (Respondent).
- Appellant filed his motion for reconsideration on June 20, 2014, before the magistrate entered a written final judgment on June 25, 2014; the motion omitted a notice of hearing and statement about oral argument required by I.R.C.P. 7(b).
- The final judgment did not mention or rule on the pending motion for reconsideration; Appellant did not pursue the motion after entry of judgment.
- Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the district court 49 days after entry of judgment; the district court dismissed the appeal as untimely, holding the motion did not toll the appeal period because it was filed before entry of final judgment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the written final judgment was valid under a Supreme Court standing order and that an outstanding pre-judgment motion for reconsideration is presumptively denied by entry of final judgment and does not toll the appeal period.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate’s written final judgment was valid | Judgment invalid because it recited pleadings and violated I.R.C.P. 54(a) (relying on Wickel) | Judgment should be treated as final under the Supreme Court’s Standing Order | Final judgment is valid under the Standing Order and is controlling here |
| Whether Appellant’s pre-judgment motion was a Rule 59(e) motion to alter/amend (tolling appeal) | Motion should be treated like a motion to alter/amend judgment, which would toll appeal time | Motion is a Rule 11(a)(2)(B) reconsideration of an interlocutory order, not a Rule 59(e) motion | Motion was a Rule 11(a)(2)(B) motion for reconsideration (interlocutory) |
| Whether the motion for reconsideration tolled the time to appeal | Motion tolled appeal period because it was timely filed before final judgment | Motion did not toll because it was presumptively denied when the final judgment was entered and was procedurally deficient | Motion was timely as a reconsideration motion but was presumptively denied by entry of final judgment and did not toll the appeal period |
| Whether appellate fees or costs should be awarded | Appellant sought fees under I.C. § 15-8-208 and others | Respondent sought fees under I.C. §§ 12-121, 12-123, I.R.C.P. 11, I.A.R. 11.2 | No fees or costs awarded to either party on appeal; appeal not frivolous |
Key Cases Cited
- Wickel v. Chamberlain, 159 Idaho 532 (Idaho 2015) (addressed final-judgment formalities under I.R.C.P. 54(a))
- State v. Wolfe, 158 Idaho 55 (Idaho 2014) (presumption that a court denied an unruled motion when it later dismissed the case)
- T.J.T., Inc. v. Mori, 148 Idaho 825 (Idaho 2010) (definition and document requirements for a final judgment)