In Re GVR Ltd. Co., Inc.
695 P.2d 1240
Idaho
1985
Check Treatment

*1 county a for should be set forth action commissioners to reason denial making provides delay by claim. since statute further that the claimant disagree. applicant may request to Therein I hearing. a For it meaning applicant must know may policy There be sound reasons for he the basis for the denial so that can requiring given claim be within a a to made Second, attempt objections. meet period. regarding time Information the va- indigency impose the medical statutes claim, lidity particularly of a the medical filing applica- requirements strict time for status, may difficult, indigency be made if strictly v. tions and are enforced. Braun impossible, by passage time. 5,n. County, Ada 102 Idaho 643 the instant ease is there no indication that 1071,1075 Thus, only P.2d n. is position changed the claimant’s had or been County’s obligations fair that the be like- prejudiced delay by because of the wise enforced. We therefore hold county Presumably, commissioners. the in- timely application county for is assistance already gathered formation had been prerequisite operation not a to the of I.C. presented, presumably because of All necessary 31-3505. is the indigency, paid by medical no bills had been filing application.” of “an Hence, resulting preju- claimant. I see no public dice to claimant. Here we deal with Appellant filed claim July moneys only expended which should af- 1982 and County met with the Madison ter it has been ascertained that a claim is August Appel Commissioners on 1982. meritorious. lant did not hear from the Commissioners attorney until her contacted them five

months later. She did not receive written

response February, Thus, until 1983. un

der I.C. appellant’s application is approved.”

“deemed

Accordingly, we reverse the district appellant’s court’s denying decision motion P.2d summary judgment affirming CO., INC., In re LTD. GVR Debtor. County Commissioners’ decision. We hold CORPORATION, Corpora A-J an Idaho appellant summary judg- is entitled tion, Plaintiff-Appellant, ment as matter of The law. case remanded for the district court enter judgment consistent with the views ex- CO., INC., Corpora GVR LTD. an Idaho pressed herein. tion, Wetzel, Trustee, al., Loren et appellant. Costs Defendants-Respondents. attorney

No on appeal. fees No. 15643. Supreme Court of Idaho. J., OLIVER, HUNTLEY, J., pro tem., concur. Feb. 1985.

BAKES, J., concurs in result.

SHEPARD, Justice, dissenting. majority opinion

The reverses district county

court commissioners decision

made on the merits of claim without

discussing the merits claim. delay solely

reversal is based on the

county in rejecting commissioners majority equates delay

claim. The *2 5, Code, provides Idaho Chapter

Title with laborers materialmen against proper- lien assert and obtain a they performed have ty upon which labor materials. they or for which furnished § specifically 45-507 the re- I.C. states a lien must quirements with which claimant perfect mechanic’s or conform order lien, one of which is that the materialman’s §in 45- claim must be verified. Nowhere 45, Chapter in Title anywhere else requirement that a mechanic’s or there a lien ac- must be materialman’s claim be I.C. knowledged in order to recorded. § county requires the recorder to 45-509 deli- I.C. record such claims. county recorder: the duties of neates must, payment his fees upon He large same, separately, in record for books, legible separate and well-bound by photo- handwriting, typewriting or graphic reproduction: Deeds, mort- grants, transfers and 1. estate, mort- Boise, releases of gages real Hawley Hawley, Ennis Troxell & convey gages, powers attorney to real Kurtz, Jr., P. plaintiff-appellant; for John ac- which have been estate leases Boise, argued. knowledged proved. Blanton, Thomas, Moffatt, Barrett & Chartered, defendants-respondents; for mechanics’ liens. 5. Notices of Ambrose, Boise, argued. Tom McDevitt, Boise, Ltd. Chas. P. for GVR real 7. Notices of attachments Co., Inc., Western Idaho Production Credit estate. Assoc., Ranches, Valley Inc. Underwood, Boise, Jr., James S. 1864 the once that since It is at noted Ralph E. and Mabel Coates. state, and then legislatures, territorial Boise, N. Weiss- Wyman, Jon for J.R. acknowledgments for requiring while rock. deeds, etc., imposed have not cording of me- requirement notices of claimed SHEPARD, DONALDSON, C.J., Before think one would liens—which chanics’ HUNTLEY, JJ., BISTLINE and inquiry. might end McFADDEN, Pro Tern. J. separately dealt Acknowledgments the Idaho Chapter in Title with PER CURIAM. § 55-801, remained which has I.C. Code. “Any in- provides: unchanged Ninth Court of since The United States Circuit affecting title following strument or Appeals has certified us may be re- property possession mechan- of real under law a issue: Whether Idaho § 55-802 chapter.” I.C. 5 of under this Chapter lien Title corded ic’s filed under rendering separately judgments, must an acknowl- deals the Idaho include Code any requirement without to I.C. or- them recordable edgment, pursuant 55-805 deals acknowledgment. properly it We hold of der for to be recorded. provides “be- not, with “instruments” and and never has. does recorded, an Appeals involving validity fore instrument can be unless there the ac- provided, knowledgments. it is otherwise its execution must executing person concurrence, There, special I in a it____” Any doubt that mechanic’s lien overruling sole vote for of Harris purview “instrument” within the Reed, It 121 P. 780 *3 § 55-805, in put Jong ago I.C. to rest judge’s was the United States district Company, Maxwell v. Twin Falls Canal case liance which led to his decision 806, (1930), 292 232 49 Idaho P. where this contrary which turned out to be to this Supreme California accepted Court contrary perception Court’s unanimous meaning Court’s ascertainment my Idaho In I special law. concurrence long, long in ago holding the word “instrument” reality doubted the of the Harris year recording 1880: that “The an instrument which is entitled under the to statute be placed The California court a construc- impart reached cannot constructive notice tion on the term as in “Instrument” used anyone.” to an Concept, New in adden- a section of their codes which is identical concurrence, my special ques- dum to I also C.S., 5413, with our sec. wherein the validity tioned the of the Court’s reliance court said: “The word instrument Gag- on an after-the-fact affidavit Mr. invariably used in the code means supplying missing nan the fact from the paper some written or instrument personally certificate that he did know the signed person and delivered one to persons I who before him. another, transferring to, or the title was then of the view the use of such giving property, a lien on a giving questionable, extrinsic evidence was other duty.” to (Hoag debt v. How- in allegedly than of an case fraudulent ard, 564.) Quoted adopted in acknowledgment. McIntosh, 546, 548, In re 150 Fed. 80 Today, in delving further into the matter C.C.A. 250. acknowledgments, my attention centered 813, Id. at 292 P. at on a statute which was not mentioned in Concept opinion, my our New special nor in 5413, C.S. sec. referred to in foregoing statute, concurrence. That which went § excerpt, 55-813, is now codified as I.C. wholly presented unmentioned in the briefs providing as it now has since 1864: in Concept, us New is Conveyance defined.—The term “con- chapter section in governs found which veyance” chapter, as used in this em- acknowledgments. It reads: “When the every writing by braces instrument in acknowledgment for proof of instru- any estate prop- which or interest in real made, is properly defectively ment but created, erty alienated, mortgaged is tified, any party may interested have an encumbered, or by which title action in judg- the district court to obtain a affected, property may except real correcting ment the certificate.” This stat- wills.1 ute was utilized in Bunnell & Eno Invest- Curtis, ment Co. Idaho P. 767 SHEPARD, J., concurs in the result. mortgagee’s In that case a district court action was both reform the ac- BISTLINE, Justice, specially concurring. knowledgment mortgage certificate of the way This in companion case is to In mortgage and to foreclose as reformed. Concept New Realty, re 107 Idaho judgment “The corrected or reformed the (Sup.Ct.1984), P.2d 355 another certified so as to make conform to the question from Ninth Circuit facts.” 5 Idaho at 51 P. at 767. This Hoag opinion light 1. A visit to “creating” discloses an error that the use of shows closer quotation Hoag actually this in Court’s in that language adherence to of I.C. 55-813 and “creating" “givin” reads a lien instead of a lien— counterpart. its identical California significance high- is which of no other than to acknowledg- Court, upholding the a reformation of the district court said refuse statute, mortgage is now I.C. 55-725: ment as to so entitle (Sec. 2971, case. Rev. foreclosed this execution, acknowledgment Stat.; Eno. Inv. Co. v. Cur- Bunnell & itself, part while no of the instrument tis, 5 Ida. 51 Pac. part of the execution of the instrument. 218-19, Booth, But the certificate P. at 778-79. supra, at the ac- made the officer who takes Bunnell, Kir- yearA Burbank v. knowledgment part is no of the instru- pro- 55 P. 295 by, ment, no part of the execution below, ceedings between a the contest was instrument, merely but is evidence creditor and a homestead declar- object execution of the instrument. The ant, there was a defective acknowl- where promote the statute is to truth edgment of homestead. declaration justice, give to the con- and to effect sought ref- When the homestead declarant *4 the whether married parties, tract of what is now or correction under ormation single, by permitting the evidence of such relief this Court denied that has execution an instrument of not the homesteads were on basis that executed, incorrectly but properly been purview of that section: within the so con- to corrected as to certified, by for defend- But it is claimed counsel truth, do think form to the and we not that, was ants the mar- legislature the intended that that taken, in the properly and that the defect the be excluded from ried women should on oversight from an certificate arose operation of rule. this beneficent part notary, the defendants the of the 51 P. at 768 Id. at re- to have said certificate entitled in years Bunnell was followed Eleven later action, ref- in this and that such formed Murphy, 14 Idaho v. Booth Mercantile the time of ormation shall relate back to notary P. 777 where a Utah of filing for of the declaration the record in acknowledgment made attached to an agree this We cannot with homestead. accordance with Idaho law certificate contention. have examined all We of The Court said: which was defective. by coun- the accessible cited authorities however, failed, proper attach a He to position, and support sel his in find of he was for the reason that they apply to exception that without stat- provisions of the our not aware A homestead conveyances. cases of us, clearly appear to quite ute. It does possesses conveyance. It none not a hand, acknowledg- on other that the the conveyance. of a requisites the essential compli- in ment was taken substantial grantee, grantor, nor is neither There The woman was statute. ance our in a declaration nor consideration contents of the acquainted with the made of, or is no transfer homestead. There instrument; fact, its already, in knew she in, act the the It is the change title. the transac- and the nature of contents whereby such the property, owner transaction; tion; it taken was her was given privilege secures a owner in of her husband and with- the absence statute, is in dero- and which by him the compulsion his any out coercion law and common gation of the common (First v. Hailey part. Nat. Bank of by a only be secured right, which can and Am.St.Rep. Glenn, 10 Ida. provision the compliance with substantial satisfactorily to appears It 77 Pac. to statute, precedent conditions us existed which that facts property with the of the the investiture proper notary could have attached contemplated. exceptional character acknowledgment. Where such tificate 210, 213-14, Kirby, Burbank exist, that and it shown already facts 55 Pac. proper, the cer- acknowledgment was upon by respon- cases relied con- One as to should be so reformed tificate Gates, 462, 22 P. statute, to dent Brusie v. it was error was and form with the (1889),and, although of the of Califor- it did not involve section 1202 Civil Code acknowledgment, sufficiency but the to I.C. 55-725. There a nia—identical levy deficiency and the constable’s grantor executed a deed return, language by constable’s used thereof and the execution nearly was California court law, required every particular, by be- presently with which we are statute con- officer, office; proper but the fore a cerned, was borrowed Califor- from acknowledg- annexing his certificate of noteworthy, believe, nia so I and because it conveyance, inadvertently ment wholly supports opinion by authored certify and mistake therein omitted Chief Concept: Justice Donaldson in New that, upon an examination without As we read the constable’s return this husband, her hearing of her he had made any way evidence did not tend to con- acquainted with con- the contents of the it. prove tradict was not offer veyance. Upon this defective certificate the return was false itself, conveyance completely exe- spect, prove but something was recorded, acknowledged, cuted done in addition to what was therein registration, to the delivered Nor think recited. do we the evidence been, donee, who had since the com- ground could been excluded on the action, mencement of the more appellant that the was not bound take thereto, seised, years prior than four notice acts done officer possessed premises, and that set in his It out return. is conceded that *5 Herman defendant had actual notice of judgment he had notice of the and the conveyance prop- the and transfer of the issuance of the attachment. The return erty against before the taken constable, recording the and the of of year 1880, grantor the the under the notice the attachment in the re- the levy and execution and Con- office, corder’s were notice sufficient stable’s sale he claims title to it as a put on inquiry, him the return if purchaser. subsequent might lawfully be aided by parol evi- Wedel, supra, at 515. dence, he was bound to notice take upholding In certifi- reformation the fact, and he took the land at his acknowledgement, cate the court elabo- peril, subject and rated: respondent good to make title by his made, such evidence. The written return of an acknowledgment When has been only officer is not the evidence of the law, quali- according to before an officer served; fact that the was properly writ it, by party making fied law take therefore, the return omits to simply requires has all law done if necessary state to a ser- valid make the her act deed. instrument and fact vice, bemay supplied by parol such Her deed thus executed and fact acknowl- evidence, so long as the stated in valid, edged though defectively may be facts return not varied or contradict- certified. embodiment the fact ed such way vested acknowledgment, affect in the form cer- of the rights. law, prescribed upon by tificate devolves Brusie, supra, 22 P. at 286 it, proof the officer who has taken upon party and making not it. acknowledgment taking officer upon Another cases relied judicially; acts and if he blunders spondent in did certif- Burbank involve the acknowledgment made, tifying duly to an acknowledgment, directly icate to an and is case, Herman, or makes defective or false point. That Wedel v. it, because, he chronologiz- can not alter or amend Cal. 507 addition to taking ing good history acknowledgment de- of California statutes return, governing acknowledgment cease, requirements livering his functions state, discharged married women in that dealt he is from all further Ux., (Bours authority. v. Zachariah et do, he But what can equity,

may now done Code,

for, by 1202 of Section the Civil

jurisdiction to certifi- correct defective con-

cate of has been Superior

ferred Court.

Wedel, supra, at 513-14. workings of I.C.

With this revelation authority of Bunnell and the

case, clarifying in the interests

law, again I submit that Harris v. Reed may be one more time

overruled before it person’s prejudice.

used to some 695 P.2d Smith, Retha husband

Karl SMITH and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, WHITTIER,

Homer

Defendant-Respondent, *6 Lewis; STORER; Timothy B.

Dale W. Smith, K. and Nadean

David Smith wife; Pat Kent Smith and

husband Smith, wife;

sy Karl husband Inc., Sons, corporation, De

Smith &

fendants.

No. 15052.

Supreme of Idaho. 12, 1985.

Feb. Webb, Burton, Webb, of Carl-

Lloyd J. Paine, Falls, son, & Twin Pedersen plaintiffs-appellants.