First State Bank of Eldorado v. Rowe, 142 Idaho 608

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court addressed the rights to growing crops after redemption of foreclosed real property, applying the doctrine of fructus industriales. The court held that tenants who cultivated and harvested the crops were entitled to them, and that the Rowes lacked standing to challenge the crop ruling after assigning their redemption rights to Pro Indivisio. The court affirmed most of the judgment, vacated an excessive portion of the foreclosure attorney-fee award, affirmed other fee awards, and remanded for entry of an amended judgment.

Holdings

1. The Rowes lacked standing to challenge the crop-ownership ruling and the attorney fees included in the redemption amount because they had fully assigned their redemption rights, including rights to title, ownership, and possession upon redemption, to Pro Indivisio and showed no identifiable injury.
2. Redemption does not require forfeiture of growing crops cultivated and severed by tenants who remained in possession pursuant to a lease and court order. The Reynolds and McDonalds were entitled to continue growing and harvest the crops after redemption.
3. The $9,000 attorney-fee award in the original default foreclosure action was improper to the extent it exceeded the $5,000 amount requested in the complaint; the excess award was vacated.
4. The award of $5,352.21 in additional attorney fees and costs to First State Bank for post-foreclosure collection and redemption proceedings was affirmed.
5. The district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121 to the Reynolds and McDonalds against the appellants.
6. The McDonalds were awarded attorney fees on appeal; First State Bank was not awarded appellate fees because Pro Indivisio prevailed on the default-fee issue, and the Reynolds did not make an adequate fee request.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Rowes had standing to appeal the summary judgment concerning ownership and possession of the crops and the attorney fees included in the redemption amount after assigning their redemption rights to Pro Indivisio.
2. Whether redemption of foreclosed property immediately entitled the redemptioner to possession of unsevered crops planted and cultivated by tenants in possession during the redemption period.
3. Whether the district court improperly included attorney fees exceeding the amount requested in the default foreclosure complaint.
4. Whether the district court properly awarded additional attorney fees incurred in connection with collection and redemption proceedings.
5. Whether attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-121 were properly awarded to the Reynolds and McDonalds.
6. Whether attorney fees and costs should be awarded on appeal.

Disposition

affirmed