KAWAMURA v. KAWAMURA
355 P.3d 635
next to their names as “Grantee.” Because there is no ambiguity in the interpretation of the deed, no extrinsic evidence is necessary beyond the language of the deed. Therefore, the property conclusively belongs to “Eric Kawamura and Jessica Kawamura, husband and wife.”
This Court has very subtly changed what has been the law of Idaho regarding property for the last hundred years. In conveyances of real property, where a deed is unambiguous and clear it is conclusive and parol evidence is not admissible to alter or vary its terms.
The first rule of construction to be applied to a written instrument in order to determine what is intended by it is that resort shall be had to the language of the instrument itself, and if the expressed meaning is plain on the face of the instrument it will control. The intention must be ascertained from the language of the deed itself where that is not ambiguous. Meir-Nandorf v. Milner, 34 Idaho 396, 201 P. 720, 721 (1921) (quotations and citations omitted).
In a divorce case the court must deal with determining the nature of the property (separate or community), as well as the distribution of the property (to husband or wife). The majority seems to be inappropriately attempting to merge the considerations for determining the division of marital property with the interpretation of an unambiguous property deed. This is a mistake. The assignment of property in a marital divorce is a different consideration from the question of whether a deed is ambiguous.
Indeed, the Majority goes further than it did in the Barrett case where the consideration of outside evidence only applied to a refinancing situation. As I emphasized in my dissent in Barrett, unambiguous deeds are to be determined by what they say. The Court muddied the waters of property law in Barrett, by allegedly creating a “narrow exception” to the general rule, and now goes further by indicating that Barrett was not a narrow holding at all. The question now becomes whether this Court will say that all real estate transactions by all parties, regardless of the financing, are examined for the intent of the parties regardless of the clarity of the deeds.
Additionally, as I pointed out in my dissent in Barrett, the Court still fails to give an explanation as to why property transactions that involve husbands and wives should be treated differently than deeds between complete strangers or between husbands and wives in situations other than divorce. Although implied, the majority fails to state that this holding applies only to the interpretation of deeds between married couples. The implications of allowing parol evidence in interpreting unambiguous property deeds will lead to uncertainty in all property transactions. This uncertainty will affect all parties involved in real property transactions, including lending institutions and title insurance companies.
Therefore, I would affirm the decision of the district court that the magistrate improperly considered parol evidence in its interpretation of the Gwen property deed. Because this deed was unambiguous, its interpretation need go no further than the language of the deed itself. As stated in the deed, the Gwen home was not Eric‘s separate property, but belonged to both “Eric Kawamura and Jessica Kawamura, husband and wife.”
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDREW GARCIA, Defendant-Respondent.
No. 42516
Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2015 Term.
Aug. 24, 2015.
355 P.3d 635
Ada County Public Defender‘s Office, Boise, for respondent.
ON THE BRIEFS
HORTON, Justice.
This is a companion case to the case of State v. Juarez, Docket No. 42476. Andrew Garcia was ordered to make certain payments in a juvenile proceeding. After he failed to make those payments, the State filed a motion for contempt. The magistrate court dismissed the motion, concluding that it did not have jurisdiction because Garcia was
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The genesis of this appeal is found in juvenile court proceedings against Garcia. On May 12, 2008, Garcia admitted to committing an offense that would have been a misdemeanor if he were an adult. He was ordered to pay court costs of $20.00. On April 28, 2009, after Garcia admitted to committing another offense and a probation violation, he was ordered to pay court costs, probation fees, and community service fees. On May 10, 2010, Garcia admitted to committing another offense and was once again ordered to pay court costs and probation supervision fees.
On May 14, 2013, June 6, 2013, and June 7, 2013, when Garcia was twenty years old, the State filed identical motions for contempt in the three juvenile court cases.1 The State alleged that as of December 20, 2012, Garcia owed a balance of $537.80 and that Garcia‘s last payment was made on March 3, 2010. A show cause hearing was scheduled for January 22, 2014. The magistrate judge opened the hearing with the following observations:
Mr. Garcia is not here. However, Mr. Garcia is over the age of 21. This is a matter that is filed under JV contempt. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Court does not have any jurisdiction after the age of 21 on any matters, as far as the way I read that case.
Where this was brought under JV number and not under a civil matter, I don‘t believe I can proceed forward. Therefore, I‘m going to Rule 48 dismiss this due to the fact that I have lost jurisdiction under the JV number.
On January 27, 2014, the magistrate judge entered an order dismissing the State‘s motion for contempt.
The State asked the trial court to reconsider its decision. The court denied the motion without hearing and the State appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed, concluding, “[t]he issue presented in this case is the same as presented in In the Interest of Luis Juarez, Case No. JV-2002-1109, filed July 31, 2014, now on appeal to the Idaho Supreme Court. A copy of that opinion is attached and incorporated in this case with the same result.” In Juarez, the district court affirmed the magistrate court‘s dismissal of the State‘s motion for contempt, concluding that the court lost jurisdiction once the former juvenile turned twenty-one. The district court reasoned that the court‘s jurisdiction was initially conveyed by operation of
The State timely appealed from the district court‘s decision affirming the magistrate court‘s order dismissing the motion for contempt.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When this Court reviews the decision of a district court sitting in its appellate capacity over a case from a magistrate court, this Court directly reviews the district court‘s decision. Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855, 859, 303 P.3d 214, 218 (2013). To determine whether the district court erred in affirming the decision of the juvenile court, this Court reviews the juvenile court‘s “record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate‘s findings of fact and whether the magistrate‘s conclusions of law follow from those findings.” Id. at 858, 303 P.3d at 217 (quoting Bailey v. Bailey, 153 Idaho 526, 529, 284 P.3d 970, 973 (2012)).
Additionally, “[t]his Court freely reviews the interpretation of a statute and its application to the facts.” St. Luke‘s Reg‘l Med. Ctr., Ltd. v. Bd. of Comm‘rs of Ada Cnty., 146 Idaho 753, 755, 203 P.3d 683, 685 (2009) (citing State v. Yzaguirre, 144 Idaho 471, 474, 163 P.3d 1183, 1186 (2007)). “Whether a court lacks jurisdiction is a question of law ... over which appellate
III. ANALYSIS
The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether
A. The juvenile court had personal jurisdiction over Garcia.
Garcia contends that
“In order to properly proceed,” against a defendant, a court requires “both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction....” State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223, 228, 91 P.3d 1127, 1132 (2004). The distinction between personal and subject-matter jurisdiction is important because parties cannot waive subject-matter jurisdiction, and it may be raised at any time, while personal jurisdiction may be waived. Id. at 227, 91 P.3d at 1131.
Personal jurisdiction refers to the court‘s authority to adjudicate the claim as to the person. That a court has “jurisdiction of a party” means either that a party has appeared generally and submitted to the jurisdiction, has otherwise waived service of process, or that process has properly issued and been served on such party. Hooper v. State, 150 Idaho 497, 500, 248 P.3d 748, 751 (2011) (quoting Rogers, 140 Idaho at 227, 91 P.3d at 1131). Thus, courts acquire personal jurisdiction when the defendant initially appears before the court on a complaint or indictment. Rogers, 140 Idaho at 228, 91 P.3d at 1132. Here, when Garcia appeared before the magistrate court to answer the allegations in the juvenile proceedings, the court acquired the personal jurisdiction over him that was needed to enter valid orders that could be enforced by contempt. Andre v. Morrow, 106 Idaho 455, 463, 680 P.2d 1355, 1363 (1984) (discussing Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 102 comment d (1971)).
A defect in subject matter jurisdiction, however, cannot be waived and may be raised at any time. Rogers, 140 Idaho at 227, 91 P.3d at 1131. This Court has explained subject matter jurisdiction as follows:
“Jurisdiction over the subject matter” has been variously defined as referring to (1) the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought; (2) the class of cases to which the particular one belongs and the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought; (3) the power of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the particular one belongs; (4) both the class of cases and the particular subject matter involved; and (5) the competency of the court to hear and decide the case. However, subject matter jurisdiction does not depend on the particular parties in the case or on the manner in which they have stated their claims, nor does it depend on the correctness of any decision made by the court. Also, the location of a transaction or controversy usually does not determine subject matter jurisdiction.
Id. at 227-28, 91 P.3d at 1131-32 (quoting 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 70 (1995)); see also Black‘s Law Dictionary 931 (9th ed. 2009) (defining subject matter jurisdiction as “jurisdiction over the nature of the ease and the type of relief sought; the extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things.“).
The central question in this case is one of subject matter jurisdiction.
B. Idaho Code section 20-507 does not deprive the magistrate court of subject matter jurisdiction to decide a claim of contempt.
To answer the question presented in this appeal, we must consider the source of the court‘s contempt powers. Garcia contends that the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider the State‘s motion for contempt under the Juvenile Corrections Act (JCA). The State responds that the court has subject matter jurisdiction arising from the inherent contempt powers of every court.
The JCA confers “exclusive, original jurisdiction” on the court “over any juvenile and over any adult who was a juvenile at the time of any act, omission or status....”
The State brought the contempt motion pursuant to
This is significant because
Jurisdiction obtained by the court in the case of a juvenile offender shall be retained by it for the purposes of this act until he becomes twenty-one (21) years of age, unless terminated prior thereto. If a juvenile offender under the jurisdiction of the court and after attaining eighteen (18) years of age, is charged with a felony, he shall be treated as any other adult offender. If a person eighteen (18) years of age or older already under court jurisdiction is convicted of a felony, that conviction shall terminate the jurisdiction of the court, provided however, nothing herein contained shall prohibit any court from proceeding as provided in section 20-508(2), Idaho Code.
The State acknowledges that this statute terminates the juvenile court‘s jurisdiction under the JCA upon the juvenile‘s twenty-first birthday. However, the State argues that because
Garcia‘s contention is incorrect. As discussed above,
Although a contempt proceeding in a criminal case “often depends for its foundation on the proceedings in the underlying action,” “[c]riminal contempt proceedings are generally independent of the cause of action out of which the alleged contempt arose.” 17 C.J.S. Contempt § 89 (2015).
The district court applied our holding in State v. Doe, 147 Idaho 326, 208 P.3d 730 (2009) (Doe 2009). There, we held that the juvenile court lost jurisdiction over a juvenile charged with a probation violation when he turned twenty-one. Id. at 330, 208 P.3d at 737. However, in Doe 2009, we emphasized that the juvenile court‘s jurisdiction attached by operation of
The juvenile court‘s authority to adjudicate the claimed contempt does not derive from its jurisdiction under the JCA; rather, it derives from the inherent powers of the court. Every court of this state, is vested with the power of contempt in order to compel obedience to its orders. As we explained in Marks v. Vehlow, 105 Idaho 560, 566, 671 P.2d 473, 479 (1983), “[t]o vindicate his jurisdiction and proper function, the magistrate is vested with the judicial contempt power. While this power has been recognized by statute ... its source lies in the Constitution,
“[P]ublic policy dictates that a party must obey an express order of the court. Courts have the contempt power in order to preserve their effectiveness and sustain their inherent and statutory power.” In re Weick, 142 Idaho 275, 279, 127 P.3d 178, 182 (2005). Even when an action is no longer pending, “a court may consider criminal contempt as a collateral issue.” Id. at 278, 127 P.3d at 181. (citing Inland Grp. of Cos., Inc. v. Obendorff, 131 Idaho 473, 475, 959 P.2d 454, 456 (1998) (“issues such as costs, attorney fees, contempts, and Rule 11 sanctions can be determined by a court after the principal suit has been terminated“)). “The Legislature has not the authority to restrict the inherent power of the court to punish for contempts, and it cannot abridge such power....” McDougall, 23 Idaho at 191, 128 P. at 954. The inherent contempt powers of the courts cannot be circumvented and are necessary “[t]o vindicate his jurisdiction and proper function. . . .” Marks, 105 Idaho at 566, 671 P.2d at 479.
As the trial court possessed the inherent power to adjudicate Garcia‘s alleged contempt, it incorrectly dismissed the State‘s motion for contempt for lack of jurisdiction. We therefore reverse the district court‘s decision affirming the magistrate court‘s decision and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
C. Garcia may assert time-based defenses in the proceedings on remand.
Although we conclude that
Although the State has attempted to characterize this as a civil contempt proceeding, the State‘s motion did not identify the sanctions that it sought to be imposed. “When sanctions are imposed to punish the contemnor for past acts, the contempt is criminal; when sanctions are imposed for compensatory or coercive reasons, the contempt is civil in nature.” Camp v. E. Fork Ditch Co., 137 Idaho 850, 862, 55 P.3d 304, 316 (2002) (quoting In re Williams, 120 Idaho at 480, 817 P.2d at 146).
If the State seeks criminal sanctions, Garcia would be entitled to advance a defense based upon the one-year statute of limitations provided by
If the State seeks civil sanctions, Garcia would likewise be entitled to present a defense based upon the passage of time. There is no statute of limitations that applies to civil contempt proceedings. State v. Schorzman, 129 Idaho 313, 315, 924 P.2d 214, 216 (1996). We deem it appropriate to provide limited relief to alleged contemnors for stale claims of contempt. We therefore hold that laches is a defense available to alleged contemnors in cases where civil contempt sanctions are sought.
The defense of laches is traditionally stated as follows:
The necessary elements to maintain a defense of laches are: (1) defendant‘s invasion of plaintiff‘s rights; (2) delay in asserting plaintiff‘s rights, the plaintiff having had notice and an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge by the defendant that plaintiff would assert his rights; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to plaintiff or the suit is not held to be barred.
Henderson v. Smith, 128 Idaho 444, 449, 915 P.2d 6, 11 (1996) (quoting State, Dep‘t of Health & Welfare v. Annen, 126 Idaho 691, 692-93, 889 P.2d 720, 721-22 (1995)).
Clearly, some modification of this formulation is necessary to address civil contempt proceedings. Thus, we hold that the elements of the defense of laches in a civil contempt proceeding are: (1) A delay between the moving party knowing, or having reason to know, of the act or omission alleged to be contempt and the moving party‘s commencement of non-summary contempt proceedings; (2) the alleged contemnor‘s lack of knowledge that the moving party would commence non-summary contempt proceedings; and (3) injury or prejudice to the alleged contemnor in the event civil contempt sanctions are imposed.
As with the usual defense of laches, this is an affirmative defense and the alleged contemnor bears the burden of proof. Thomas v. Arkoosh Produce, Inc., 137 Idaho 352, 359, 48 P.3d 1241, 1248 (2002). Whether the defense of laches applies in a particular case is primarily a question of fact for the trial court. Huppert v. Wolford, 91 Idaho 249, 257, 420 P.2d 11, 19 (1966). “Lapse of time, although an important element, is not, standing alone, to be considered as controlling in determining the applicability of the defense of laches.” Finucane v. Village of Hayden, 86 Idaho 199, 206, 384 P.2d 236, 240 (1963). Thus, the central question for a trial court in determining if the defense of laches is appropriate is the prejudice to the alleged contemnor caused by the moving party‘s delay.
IV. CONCLUSION
We reverse the decision of the district court affirming the magistrate court‘s dismissal of the State‘s motion for contempt. We remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Chief Justice BURDICK and Justices EISMANN, J. JONES and W. JONES concur.
Notes
Subject to the prior jurisdiction of the United States, the court shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction over any juvenile and over any adult who was a juvenile at the time of any act, omission or status, in the county in which the juvenile resides, or in the county in which the act, omission or status allegedly took place, in the following cases:
(1) Where the act, omission or status occurs in the state of Idaho and is prohibited by federal, state, local or municipal law or ordinance by reason of minority only;
(2) Where the act or omission occurs in the state of Idaho and is a violation of any federal, state, local or municipal law or ordinance which would be a crime if committed by an adult;
(3) Concerning any juvenile where the juvenile comes under the purview of the interstate compact for juveniles as set forth in chapter 19, title 16, Idaho Code;
(4) This chapter shall not apply to juvenile violators of beer, wine or other alcohol and tobacco laws; except that a juvenile violator under the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the violation may, at the discretion of the court, be treated under the provisions of this chapter;
(5) This chapter shall not apply to the juvenile offenders who are transferred for criminal prosecution as an adult, as provided in this chapter;
(6) This chapter shall not apply to juvenile violators of traffic, watercraft, fish and game, failure to obey a misdemeanor citation and criminal contempt laws; except that a juvenile violator under the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of such violation may, at the discretion of the court, be treated under the provisions of this chapter;
(7) This chapter shall not apply to juvenile sex offenders who violate the provisions of section 18-8414, Idaho Code.