Thompson v. Thompson, 162 Idaho 918

Background

Patricia and Ronald Thompson stipulated to a divorce decree (entered Aug. 21, 2013) that awarded Patricia ownership, control, and beneficiary status of Ronald’s term life insurance policy, "at her sole expense," and required both parties to execute documents necessary to effectuate the decree.
Patricia later learned the policy had lapsed (insurance company informed her it expired Sept. 26, 2013); she filed a motion for relief from judgment under I.R.C.P. 60(a), 60(b)(5), and 60(b)(6) arguing enforcement was inequitable and Ronald breached duties by failing to forward notices or otherwise preserve the policy.
Ronald moved to dismiss under I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6); both parties submitted affidavits. Patricia sought a continuance for discovery under I.R.C.P. 56(f) to try to prove notices were sent to Ronald.
The magistrate denied Patricia’s motion for relief and her continuance request and granted Ronald’s motion to dismiss; the district court affirmed and awarded Ronald attorney fees. Patricia appealed.
The appellate court reviewed whether the magistrate’s findings and legal conclusions were supported and affirmed the district court: 1) the decree was declarative (not prospective), 2) Patricia was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(5), 3) Ronald did not breach any duty before or after entry of the decree, and 4) discovery would have been futile. Attorney fees were affirmed and awarded on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Patricia is entitled to relief from the divorce judgment under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) (judgment no longer equitable prospectively)	The decree required future action (assignment/implementation) as to the life policy and is prospective; enforcing it is inequitable because the policy lapsed due to Ronald’s conduct.	The decree was a final, declarative adjudication of rights; Patricia obtained legal control at entry and any further steps were ministerial to document ownership; not prospective.	Judgment is not prospective; Rule 60(b)(5) relief denied.
Whether Ronald breached a marital fiduciary duty or implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by not forwarding insurance notices	Ronald failed to forward notices before/after judgment and thereby allowed the policy to lapse, breaching duties.	Any failure to forward notices before entry did not harm Patricia because the policy was in effect on entry and Patricia had independently confirmed coverage; post-entry decree gave Patricia legal control—no duty to forward notices arises from the decree.	No breach found either before or after entry; argument rejected.
Whether Patricia should have been allowed discovery (continuance) under I.R.C.P. 56(f)	Discovery could show insurer sent notices to Ronald or that Ronald executed no transfer documents—relevant to breach and relief.	Discovery would be futile because Rule 60(b)(5) relief is unavailable (decree non‑prospective) and no duty was breached regardless of discovered facts.	Denial of continuance affirmed as discovery would not change the legal outcome.
Whether the magistrate erred by treating Ronald’s dismissal as a motion to dismiss rather than converting to summary judgment; and whether attorney fees were proper	Courts improperly considered affidavits outside the motion to dismiss so conversion to summary judgment was required; fees not warranted.	Outcome would be the same under either standard; Patricia raised no viable claim; fees warranted as appeal lacked foundation.	Conversion issue immaterial—dismissal stands under either standard; attorney fees awarded to Ronald and on appeal.

Key Cases Cited

Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855 (review standard for district court acting in appellate capacity)
Meyers v. Hansen, 148 Idaho 283 (Rule 60(b)(5): definition and test for prospective judgments)
Rudd v. Rudd, 105 Idaho 112 (divorce decree prospective when future sale required; relief under Rule 60(b)(5))
Fix v. Fix, 125 Idaho 372 (example of prospective decree requiring assignment)
Printcraft Press, Inc. v. Sunnyside Park Utilities, Inc., 153 Idaho 440 (discretionary nature of Rule 60 relief)
Smith v. Smith, 124 Idaho 431 (existence of marital fiduciary duties prior to divorce)
Phillips v. Phillips, 93 Idaho 384 (implied duty of good faith during stipulation up to judgment entry)
Myers v. Workmen's Auto Ins. Co., 140 Idaho 495 (court will not consider arguments raised first in reply brief)
Bingham v. Montane Res. Assocs., 133 Idaho 420 (discretion to award attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121)