PHH MORTGAGE, Plaintiff-Third Party Defendant-Counterdefendant-Respondent, v. CHARLES NICKERSON and DONNA NICKERSON, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Third Party Complainants-Appellants, and COLDWELL BANKER MORTGAGE, a d/b/a of PHH MORTGAGE, Third Party Defendant-Respondent, and JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA., Third Party Defendant.
Docket No. 45146
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
August 1, 2018
Boise, June 2018 Term. Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Clearwater County. Honorable Gregory FitzMaurice, District Judge.
The orders of the district court are affirmed.
Charles and Donna Nickerson, Orofino, appellants pro se.
Aldridge Pite, LLP, Boise, for respondents. Lewis N. Stoddard argued.
This is the second appeal following a judicial foreclosure. Charles and Donna Nickerson initially appealed the district court‘s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of PHH Mortgage and J.P. Mortgage Chase Bank in a judicial foreclosure proceeding involving the Nickersons’ approximately fifty acres of land in Clearwater County, Idaho (the “Property”). We affirmed the district court‘s summary judgment grant in PHH Mortgage v. Nickerson, 160 Idaho 388, 374 P.3d 551 (2016) (“Nickerson I”) in April 2016. Following this Court‘s decision, the district court issued an order lifting the stay on its prior judgment, as well as an order of sale and decree of foreclosure. The district court also denied the Nickersons’ post-appeal motions for sanctions, to quash execution and judgment, and to vacate or amend the order of sale and decree of foreclosure. The Nickersons now challenge several issues previously decided in Nickerson I as well as the district court‘s decisions on motions and orders subsequent to that decision. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
This Court in Nickerson I provided a detailed factual record of the events surrounding this case:
In October of 2002, Charles and Donna Nickerson (the Nickersons) purchased approximately 50 acres of land in Clearwater County, Idaho. The Nickersons executed a promissory note and a Deed of Trust in favor of Coldwell Banker Mortgage[, a subsidiary of PHH mortgage,] in the principal sum of $285,000. The district court determined that the original loan to the Nickersons was made by Coldwell Banker Mortgage and was originally serviced by Mortgage Service Center. In December of 2002, the note was assigned to Fannie Mae, and J.P. Morgan Chase acquired the note in November of 2007, at which point Chase Home Financial began servicing the loan. In February of 2010, Mortgage Service Center resumed responsibility for loan servicing, and in June of 2010, Chase assigned the note to PHH. As of December 1, 2013, the amount due on the note, including interest, was $340,339.84.
On January 10, 2011, PHH filed a complaint against the Nickersons claiming that the Nickersons had defaulted on their loan and seeking to foreclose. On August 12, 2011, the Nickersons answered the complaint. On February 1, 2012, the Nickersons filed an amended answer, counterclaim, and third-party complaint against Chase. The Nickersons’ answer, counterclaim, and third party complaint alleged, among other things: breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of note, breach of
12 U.S.C. § 2605 , breach of the federal fair debt collection practices act, breach of the federal fair credit reporting act. In addition to these claims, the Nickersons also sought an award of punitive damages. On October 16, 2012, PHH and Chase each filed motions for summary judgment.On November 16, 2012, the district court granted in part and denied in part PHH‘s motion for summary judgment and granted Chase‘s motion for summary judgment. In granting Chase‘s motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded, “Chase‘s motion for summary judgment should be granted as to all of the Nickersons’ third party claims for failure to present any evidence to support the elements of those third party claims, and/or the claims are not proper because the cited statutes do not apply to the facts of this case.” In its partial denial of PHH‘s motion for summary judgment, the district court stated: “PHH‘s motion for summary judgment should be granted as to all of the Nickersons’ counterclaims for failure to present any evidence to support the elements of those counterclaims, and/or the counterclaims are not proper because the cited statutes do not apply to the facts of this case. Summary judgment should also be granted as to the Nickersons’ affirmative defense....” However, the district court determined there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Nickersons were in default in 2010 when PHH acquired its interest in the Nickersons’ loan.
On December 5, 2012, the Nickersons filed a motion to reconsider. The motion stated that supporting documentation would soon be filed; however, on February 5, 2013, the district court denied the motion because the Nickersons had not presented a supporting memorandum following the motion.
On February 25, 2013, the Nickersons’ attorney moved to withdraw. On May 15, 2013, the district court granted the withdrawal motion, and on August 19, 2013, the Nickersons filed a notice of appearance pro se.
On November 12, 2013, PHH filed a second motion for summary judgment, again contending that the Nickersons were in default and that they had not presented evidence to the contrary. On December 17, 2013, the Nickersons filed their own motion for summary judgment, supported by the affidavit of Charles Nickerson. PHH moved to strike the affidavit, and the district court granted the motion in part. The district court set the hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment for February 11, 2014. On February 5, 2014, the Nickersons filed an unsuccessful motion to continue the hearing. On April 4, 2014, the district court issued its order and final judgment granting PHH‘s motion for summary judgment and denying the Nickersons’ motion for summary judgment. The district court concluded that the Nickersons had not presented evidence to support their conclusory allegation that they had not defaulted on their loan obligation.
Following judgment, the Nickersons filed three motions to reconsider and a motion for leave to amend their answer, counterclaim, third-party complaint and demand for a jury trial. On May 6, 2014, the district court issued an order denying the Nickersons’ motions to reconsider, ruling them either untimely or inapplicable to a final judgment.
On May 15, 2014, the Nickersons filed a “Motion for Justice” in Clearwater County Idaho, and on May 16, 2014, the Nickersons filed a motion to suppress and strike the depositions of Charles and Donna Nickerson, which had been taken on October 3, 2012, prior to the initial motion for summary judgment.
On May 16, 2014, the Nickersons filed their notice of appeal. Subsequently, on June 6, 2014, the Nickersons filed a motion for relief with the district court. On June 11, 2014, the district court denied the Nickersons’ motions for justice and relief. The district court treated the motions as motions to reconsider and concluded that the Nickersons still had not presented any admissible evidence that would create a genuine issue of material fact.
On October 6, 2014, the Nickersons returned to the district court and filed a motion for relief from judgment or order. The Nickersons argued for relief under
Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) –(3), and (6). Two weeks later, the Nickersons followed up by filing a motion to set aside judgment based on supplemental evidence of fraud on the court, filed October 21, 2014, and an edited motion to set aside judgment filed October 22, 2014. Those motions were both based on a claim of fraud underIdaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) . The Nickersons argued they were entitled to relief based on: mistakes by the court; surprise due to the actions and withdrawal of their former counsel; excusable neglect due to their reliance on their former counsel; new evidence showing PHH did not have standing to pursue foreclosure; fraud regarding PHH‘s chain of title, the amount of default, and coercion of the Nickersons at closing; and misconduct of the opposing parties regarding the depositions of the Nickersons and the submission of a fraudulent affidavit. The district court denied the Nickersons’ motions, concluding that the Nickersons failed to present admissible evidence to support their claims. The Nickersons now present the same arguments on appeal before this Court.
Nickerson I, 160 Idaho at 391–92, 374 P.3d at 554–55. This Court affirmed the district court‘s judgment and denied the Nickersons’ various Rule 60 motions. Id. at 400, 374 P.3d at 563. We further held “that the Nickersons [] pursued th[e] appeal frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation,” and ordered them to pay attorney‘s fees. Id. On May 18, 2016, the Nickersons filed a petition for rehearing, which this court denied on July 19, 2016.
On April 11, 2017, the Nickersons filed in district court a motion for sanctions and a motion to quash execution and judgment. On April 13, 2017, the district court denied those motions and issued two orders, one lifting the stay it had granted during the pendency of the Nickerson I appeal, as well as an order of sale and decree of foreclosure. The Nickersons responded with two more motions on April 27, 2017—a motion to reconsider the
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Idaho Appellate Rules require that parties’ arguments “shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented on appeal, the reasons therefor, with citations to authorities, statutes and parties of the transcript and record relied upon.”
“Pro se litigants are not entitled to special consideration or leniency because they represent themselves.” Id. Rather, “[p]ro se litigants must conform to the same standards and rules as litigants represented by attorneys, and this Court will address the issues accordingly.” Mendez v. Univ. Health Servs. Boise State Univ., 163 Idaho 237, 242, 409 P.3d 817, 822 (2018).
III. ANALYSIS
A. The “law of the case” doctrine prevents this Court from addressing issues that were already decided or could have been raised in Nickerson I.
This Court must first address what issues are properly before it in this appeal. Idaho adheres to the “law of the case” doctrine, which provides that when “the Supreme Court, in deciding a case presented states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, such pronouncement becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its subsequent progress, both in the trial court and upon subsequent appeal.” ParkWest Homes, LLC v. Barnson, 154 Idaho 678, 683, 302 P.3d 18, 23 (2013) (quoting Swanson v. Swanson, 134 Idaho 512, 515, 5 P.3d 973, 976 (2000)). This “doctrine also prevents consideration on a subsequent appeal of alleged errors that might have been, but were not, raised in the earlier appeal.” Id. (quoting Taylor v. Maile, 146 Idaho 705, 709, 201 P.3d 1282, 1286 (2009)).
The doctrine‘s principles are “best understood as rules of sensible and sound practice that permit logical progression toward judgment.” Joan Steinman, Law of the Case: A Judicial Puzzle in Consolidated and Transferred Cases and in Multidistrict Litigation, 135 U. Penn. L.R. 595, 599 (1987). “Without something like it, an adverse judicial decision would become little more than an invitation to take a mulligan, encouraging lawyers and litigants alike to believe that if at first you don‘t succeed, just try again.” Entek GRB, LLC v. Stull Ranches, LLC, 840 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 2016). This would lead to wasted judicial resources and increased delay in resolving cases, which would only serve to erode the public‘s trust in the court system. Id. (citing McIlravy v. Kerr-McGee Coal Corp., 204 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2000)).
The Nickersons’ appeal focuses heavily on issues this Court decided in Nickerson I. Of the seventeen issues they state in their opening brief, most involve an attempt to re-litigate the prior determinations of this Court. Because we adhere to the “law of the case,” this Court will not consider such issues. Accordingly, this Court will address only those issues that were not decided or could not have been raised in Nickerson I.
B. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Nickersons’ motion to quash execution and judgment and motion to reconsider.
In their motion to quash execution and judgment, the Nickersons claim that the district court had the duty to relieve them of the final judgment based on general allegations, including “fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, fraudulent suppression of material
The Nickersons’ argument claiming they deserve relief from the district court‘s grant of summary judgment—affirmed by this Court in Nickerson I—is merely an attempt to re-litigate the foreclosure. If an appellant fails to “assert his assignments of error with particularity and to support his position with sufficient authority, those assignments of error are too indefinite to be heard by this Court.” Bettwieser, 154 Idaho at 322, 297 P.3d at 1139 (quoting Bach, 148 Idaho at 790, 229 P.3d at 1152). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the Nickersons provided no factual or legal basis for their requested relief, and denied the motion.
Additionally, the Nickersons’ motion to reconsider the district court‘s denial is simply a more verbose attempt at the re-litigation of the summary judgment and related issues decided in Nickerson I. Since a motion to reconsider requires a district court to “apply the same standard of review that the court applied when deciding the original order,” the district court also did not abuse its discretion when it denied the Nickersons’ motion to reconsider. Westby v. Schaefer, 157 Idaho 616, 621, 338 P.3d 1220, 1225 (2014) (quoting Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 276, 281 P.3d 103, 113 (2012)).
C. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Nickersons’ motion for sanctions and motion to reconsider the same.
The district court also determined that the Nickersons’ motion for sanctions—like their motion to quash execution and judgment—failed to include any factual or legal basis. Both the Nickersons’ motion for sanctions to the district court and their briefing to this Court recite facts surrounding the initial summary judgment grant, including this Court‘s holding in Nickerson I. Generic, recycled accusations of false or misleading statements made by PHH leading up to summary judgment are belied by the final decision of this Court in Nickerson I, including our determination that the Nickersons pursued that appeal frivolously and failed to support their arguments with relevant legal citation. 160 Idaho at 400, 374 P.3d at 563. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motions after determining that these arguments provided no factual or legal basis on which to impose sanctions under either the Nickersons’ original motion or their motion to reconsider.
D. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Nickersons’ motion to vacate or amend the order of sale and decree of foreclosure.
The Nickersons claim the district court erred in refusing to vacate or amend the order of sale and decree of foreclosure. They raise two issues regarding that order: (1) the Property should have been sold as separate parcels, and (2) contrary to the district court‘s order, they are entitled to possession during the one-year redemption period following a judicial foreclosure. PHH responds that the Nickersons provided no evidence that the Property was comprised of two parcels, and their perfunctory argument in briefing provides no supporting explanation or evidence. PHH further contends that the issue of possession is not ripe, since the Nickersons have not been divested of their possession. Additionally, even if ripe, PHH claims the Nickersons are not entitled to exclusive possession during the one-year redemption period.
The Nickersons’ second contention regarding this order, that they are entitled to exclusive possession during the redemption period, also fails. First, this Court disagrees with PHH that the claim is not ripe. In Idaho, a claim is ripe when “(1) the case presents definite and concrete issues; (2) a real and substantial controversy exists (as opposed to hypothetical facts); and (3) there is a present need for adjudication.” State v. Manley, 142 Idaho 338, 342, 127 P.3d 954, 958 (2005) (citations omitted). The fact that PHH retracted its demand for possession does not obviate the district court‘s order permitting the purchaser to take possession after the sheriff‘s sale. That order thus allows the purchaser to dispossess the Nickersons during the redemption period, and PHH‘s current decision not to enforce it does not remove it from the realm of a real or substantial controversy.
Nothing in the redemption statutes mandate that a potential redeeming party is to maintain possession during the redemption period. In fact,
The Nickersons’ reliance on this Court‘s prior decision in Eastern Idaho Loan & Trust Co. v. Blomberg, 62 Idaho 497, 113 P.2d 406 (1941), is misplaced. In Blomberg, this Court analyzed whether a district court‘s decree authorizing possession following a foreclosure sale was valid. Id. at 506–07, 113 P.2d at 410. We stated, “The decree conforms to the statute and cannot, reasonably, be construed to mean that respondent, or any other purchaser, is to have possession of the property prior to one year from the date of sale, nor prior to the issuance of a sheriff‘s deed.” Id. However, the Court was merely analyzing the lower court‘s decree in that case, which did not authorize possession until the production of a sheriff‘s deed after the redemption period. Id. at 504, 113 P.2d at 409. The Blomberg decision did not mandate possession for potential redeemers until the redemption period lapsed.
Thirty years later, this Court confirmed that the right of possession transfers to the purchaser in Acker v. Mader, 94 Idaho 94, 481 P.2d 605 (1971). In Acker, the defendants were purchasers at a foreclosure sale, and
Defendants, upon their purchase of the property at the foreclosure sale, obtained all of the right, title and interest of plaintiffs in the property, and the only right of plaintiffs remaining thereafter was to re-obtain title within the statutory period of time by compliance with the redemption statutes. Therefore, defendants herein had the right to demand and receive the rents from plaintiffs and upon breach of that agreement, defendants were proper in their institution of action to recover the rents due or to remove plaintiffs from the property.
Id. at 96, 481 P.2d at 607 (citations omitted). Thus, based on the relevant statutes’ wording and Idaho case law, the Nickersons were not entitled to possession during the redemption period. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Nickersons’ motion to vacate or amend the order of sale and decree of foreclosure.
E. This Court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.
The Nickersons raise two issues for the first time on appeal: (1) “[w]hether it is lawful or just for an entity beside[s] PHH to purchase the Property with a credit bid when the decree of foreclosure only permits PHH to credit bid,” and (2) whether a settlement agreement between PHH and the state of Idaho should lead this Court to overturn Nickerson I in the interest of justice. “This Court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” Watkins Co. v. Estate of Storms, 161 Idaho 683, 685, 390 P.3d 409, 411 (2017) (quoting Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. Spackman, 150 Idaho 790, 812, 252 P.3d 71, 93 (2011)). Because these issues are being raised for the first time on appeal, this Court will not consider them.
F. PHH is entitled to an award of attorney‘s fees on appeal.
Finally, PHH requests attorney‘s fees pursuant to
The Nickersons used this appeal to cast unsubstantiated aspersions and rehash every failed argument they made to the court below, and to this Court in Nickerson I. We find that the Nickersons pursued this appeal frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation—just as they did in their prior appeal. Accordingly, PHH is entitled to an award of attorney‘s fees on appeal.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court affirms the district court‘s orders following Nickerson I, and grant costs and fees to respondent PHH.
PER CURIAM