PHH Mortgage Services Corp. v. Perreira, 146 Idaho 631

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed a partial judgment awarding PHH Mortgage Services possession of property following a nonjudicial foreclosure and dismissing certain counterclaims. The court held that factual issues concerning the relationship between PHH and Cendant, the effect of an earlier deed to Fannie Mae, and ownership of the property precluded summary judgment. It also held that the district court improperly entered judgment affecting Mavis Anestos's estate without service or appearance, and vacated the judgment for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A timely motion under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a)(2)(B) seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order requires the trial court to consider relevant new evidence, even when the motion is joined with a Rule 52(b) motion to amend findings or conclusions.
2. Summary judgment for PHH was improper because the record presented an issue of fact regarding the relationship between Cendant and PHH and whether the after-acquired-title doctrine transferred any title acquired by PHH to Fannie Mae.
3. The district court did not err in denying the request for an accounting because the defendants failed to show that an accounting could be relevant to any remaining issue.
4. The district court did not err or abuse its discretion in refusing to apply judicial estoppel to bar PHH's possession claim.
5. The district court erred by entering judgment affecting Anestos's interest in the property when her Estate had not been served and had not appeared in the action.
6. The failure to mail foreclosure-sale notice to a personal representative cannot be excused merely because no personal representative had yet been appointed, and a later appointment does not retroactively cure the failure.
7. The district court erred in dismissing the Truth in Lending Act claim on summary judgment because PHH's motion did not challenge that claim.
8. Neither party was entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred in refusing to consider new evidence supporting reconsideration of the interlocutory summary-judgment order.
2. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether PHH owned the property and could maintain ejectment.
3. Whether the defendants were entitled to an accounting.
4. Whether PHH was judicially estopped from obtaining possession.
5. Whether PHH was a good-faith purchaser at the foreclosure sale as to Anestos's interest.
6. Whether the district court could enter judgment affecting Anestos's interest without serving the Estate.
7. Whether the Truth in Lending Act counterclaim could be dismissed on summary judgment when PHH had not challenged it.
8. Whether either side was entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Disposition

vacated