Summary
The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed an administrative district judge's order declaring Vernon K. Smith, Jr., a vexatious litigant under Idaho Court Administrative Rule 59 due to his repeated filing of unmeritorious and frivolous pro se motions in ongoing probate litigation. The court held that the administrative judge acted within his discretion and did not abuse his authority in issuing the prefiling order, which requires Smith to obtain judicial leave before filing new pro se cases. Additionally, the court declined to address Smith's unpreserved due process claim and denied the administrative judge's request for attorney fees on appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prefiling order violated Smith’s due process rights.
- Whether the ADJ erred by declaring Smith a vexatious litigant.
- Whether the ADJ is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.
Holdings
- The Court held that Smith’s constitutional due process claim was not preserved for appeal and therefore will not be considered.
- The Court held that the ADJ acted within his discretion and did not err in declaring Smith a vexatious litigant.
- The Court held that the ADJ is not entitled to attorney fees because the appeal was not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation under Idaho Code §12-121.
Factual background
Smith, a former Idaho attorney, filed numerous pro se motions in the probate of his mother’s estate, which the personal representative argued were frivolous and intended to delay. The personal representative moved to have Smith declared a vexatious litigant under Idaho Code Administrative Rule 59(d)(3). The administrative judge found Smith’s filings met the statutory criteria and issued a prefiling order prohibiting further pro se filings without court permission.
Procedural history
The administrative judge (ADJ) issued a prefiling order declaring Smith a vexatious litigant under ICAR 59(d)(3). The district court affirmed the ADJ's order. Smith appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing due process violations and seeking attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the ADJ's order and denied fees.