BAGLEY v. THOMASON

• Decision Date: 06 October 2010
• Docket Number: No. 36041-2009.,36041-2009.
• Citation: 241 P.3d 972,149 Idaho 799
• Parties: John BAGLEY and Terrence Bagley, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Byron T. THOMASON and Marilynn Thomason, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

149 Idaho 799

241 P.3d 972

John BAGLEY and Terrence Bagley, Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.Byron T. THOMASON and Marilynn Thomason, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 36041-2009.

Supreme Court of Idaho,

Idaho Falls, September 2010 Term.

Oct. 6, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Byron T. Thomason and Marilynn Thomason, pro se appellants, Rexburg. Marilynn Thomason argued.

Beard St. Clair Gaffney, PA, Idaho Falls, for respondents. John Avondet argued.

EISMANN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the grant of a partial summary judgment, certified as final, quieting title to certain real property in the plaintiffs. We affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

By warranty deed dated July 20, 2007, Marilynn Thomason and Byron T. Thomason, husband and wife, conveyed certain real property to Terrence Bagley and John Bagley. On the same date, Bagleys executed a contract agreeing to reconvey the property to Marilynn Thomason upon repayment of the purchase price, plus interest and points, on or before 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2008. The contract provided that if that payment was not made, Thomasons “shall forever lose any legal rights to the land as deeded.” Bagleys also agreed that Marilynn Thomason could continue to farm and maintain the property until that time.

On May 6, 2008, Bagleys filed this action seeking to quiet their title in the real property, to recover damages for trespass and slander of title, and foreclose upon the property if the warranty deed and reconveyance agreement were construed to be a mortgage. ¹ Thomasons answered and filed a counterclaim seeking damages for duress, breach of contract, threats, and unjust enrichment.

On August 8, 2008, Bagleys filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their quiet title claim. They filed affidavits providing copies of the recorded warranty deed and the contract of reconveyance and stating that Thomasons had failed to make any portion of the payment due on January 20, 2008. After a hearing, the district court entered a decision granting the motion. On November 14, 2008, the court entered a partial judgment quieting the title to the real property in Bagleys. The court also certified the partial judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b)(1) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure.

On December 22, 2008, Thomasons filed a notice of appeal. On February 9, 2009, the district court entered a judgment awarding Bagleys court costs, including attorney fees, in the sum of $12,225.36.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

A. Did Bagleys lack standing to bring an action for quiet title to the real property?

B. Was the warranty deed void because it did not include the address(es) of Bagleys?

C. Did the district court err by failing to give Thomasons sufficient time for discovery?

D. Did the district court err in quieting title to the Bagleys in all water rights and fixtures appurtenant to the real property?

E. Did the district court err in granting the partial summary judgment without addressing Thomasons' counterclaims?

F. Did the district court err in entering the judgment for court costs, including attorney fees, without giving Thomasons an opportunity to be heard?

G. Is either party entitled to attorney fees on appeal?

III. ANALYSIS

A. Did Bagleys Lack Standing to Bring an Action for Quiet Title to the Real Property?

[1] Thomasons contend that Bagleys lacked standing to bring a quiet title action regarding the real property and that the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction. “The doctrine of standing focuses on the party seeking relief and not on the issues the party wishes to have adjudicated.”

Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635, 641, 778 P.2d 757, 763 (1989). To satisfy the requirement of standing litigants must allege an injury in fact, a fairly traceable causal connection between the claimed injury and the challenged conduct, and a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury. Troutner v. Kempthorne, 142 Idaho 389, 391, 128 P.3d 926, 928 (2006).

[2] [3] Bagleys are the grantees of a warranty deed conveying the real property to them. The deed was executed by the Thomasons and was recorded. In fact, Marilynn Thomason alleges that she recorded the deed. “[R]ecordation of the deed at the grantor's knowledge and direction evidences a valid delivery of the deed to the grantee which encompasses the requisite intent of the grantor to pass title.” Hartley v. Stibor, 96 Idaho 157, 160, 525 P.2d 352, 355 (1974). As grantees of the deed, Bagleys clearly had standing to bring a quiet title action.

Thomasons' standing arguments are based upon contentions regarding the validity of the warranty deed. They contend, “The respondents lacked standing under Idaho Statutes 55-601, 55-818, 55-813, 9-503, 45-901 and 902.” They do not argue the applicability of any of those statutes except Idaho Code § 55-601. ² However, we need not address that statute with respect to their standing argument.

As stated above, standing focuses upon the party seeking relief and not upon the merits of the issues that are to be litigated. Thomasons contend that under Idaho Code § 55-601, Bagleys should have lost on the merits of their claim that they had title to the real property. ³ A party's standing to bring an action is an issue that is entirely separate from the issue of whether the party will prevail on the merits of the action. Section 55-601 has nothing to do with standing. As the record owners of the real property, Bagleys have standing to bring their quiet title action.

B. Was the Warranty Deed Void Because It Did Not Include the Address(es) of Bagleys?

[4] Idaho Code § 55-601 provides: “A conveyance of an estate in real property may be made by an instrument in writing, subscribed by the party disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing. The name of the grantee and his complete mailing address must appear on such instrument.” Thomasons contend that the warranty deed they gave to Bagleys is void because the deed did not contain the Bagleys' complete mailing address(es). Thomasons did not raise this issue in the trial court. “This Court will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” Houston v. Whittier, 147 Idaho 900, 911, 216 P.3d 1272, 1283 (2009).

C. Did the Court Err in Failing to Give Thomasons Sufficient Time for Discovery?

[5] Thomasons contend that they were not provided adequate time for discovery before the district court granted Bagleys' motion for partial summary judgment. Bagleys filed their motion for partial summary judgment on August 8, 2008. Thomasons filed an objection to the motion, two affidavits, and a brief, but in none of those documents did they request additional time. The motion was heard on September 8, 2008. Thomasons have not pointed to anything in the record indicating that they ever asked the district court to give them more time. Absent a request for additional time, the district court obviously did not err in failing to sua sponte grant Thomasons more time to respond to Bagleys' motion for partial summary judgment.

D. Did the District Court Err in Quieting Title to the Bagleys in All Water Rights and Fixtures Appurtenant to the Real Property?

In its partial judgment, the district court quieted Bagleys' title in the real property “[t]ogether with any and all water rights and fixtures appurtenant thereto.” Thomasons contend this was error because the warranty deed did not mention water rights or appurtenances and the reconveyance agreement recited, “The Grantees agree the deed is for bare land and does not include any manner or form of chattel.”

[6] [7] “Unless they are expressly reserved in the deed or it is clearly shown that the parties intended that the grantor would reserve them, appurtenant water rights pass with the land even though they are not mentioned in the deed and the deed does not mention ‘appurtenances.’ ” Joyce Livestock Co. v. United States, 144 Idaho 1, 14, 156 P.3d 502, 515 (2007). The failure of the warranty deed to mention water rights or appurtenances did not prevent water rights appurtenant to the land from being conveyed with the real property.

Thomasons contend that the recitation that the warranty deed conveyed “bare land” means that it did not include appurtenant water rights. They do not cite any authority supporting their contention that “bare land” means land without water rights. The term “bare land” means land that does not have improvements constructed upon it. See The Senator, Inc. v. Ada County, Bd. of Equalization, 138 Idaho 566, 573, 67 P.3d 45, 52 (2003). The term has nothing to do with water rights, and the district court did not err in quieting Bagleys' title in the water rights appurtenant to the real property.

E. Did the District Court Err in Granting the Partial Summary Judgment Without Addressing Thomasons' Counterclaims?

[8] Thomasons contend that “the district court abused its discretion when ignoring the appellants' counter-complaint against the respondents for breach of contract, fraud and fraud by inducement, duress and unjust enrichment.” Thomasons did not allege a claim for fraud or fraud in the inducement. They alleged in count one of their complaint that they suffered damages because they signed the warranty deed and contract for reconveyance under duress caused by those documents being presented to them about ten minutes before the real property would have been sold at a foreclosure sale. They alleged in count two of their complaint that they suffered damages when Bagleys asserted sole ownership of the real property and ownership of chattels and water shares. They alleged in count three of their complaint that after the time for them to repurchase the property had expired, Bagleys committed extortion by demanding that Thomasons remove all of their personal property from the real property and threatening adverse consequences if they failed to do so. They alleged in count four of...