Farrell v. Brown

• Citation: 729 P.2d 1090,111 Idaho 1027
• Decision Date: 02 December 1986
• Docket Number: No. 16095,16095
• Parties: Hazel FARRELL, Paul Huetter and Mary McKee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William R. BROWN and Virginia Brown, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

Page 1090

729 P.2d 1090

111 Idaho 1027

Hazel FARRELL, Paul Huetter and Mary McKee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William R. BROWN and Virginia Brown, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 16095.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

Dec. 2, 1986.

Everett D. Hofmeister, Coeur d'Alene, for plaintiffs-appellants.

E.L. Miller (argued) and Janet D. Robnett (Paine, Hamblen, Coffin, Brooke & Miller), Coeur d'Alene, for defendants-respondents.

WALTERS, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs, Hazel Farrell and her children, brought this action to quiet title to a tract of land along Coeur d'Alene Lake. Two principle issues are presented: (1) whether the plaintiffs are barred by res judicata from claiming ownership to the property, as a result of prior default judgments in favor of defendants' predecessor and the defendants; and (2) whether the district court erred in finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish an interest in the property either under a claim of adverse possession or by a prescriptive easement. We affirm the judgment.

Hazel Farrell (formerly Hazel Huetter) and her children, Paul Huetter and Mary (Huetter) McKee (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Huetters), jointly own property at Mica Bay on the shore of Coeur d'Alene Lake, adjacent to property owned by the defendants, William and Virginia Brown. Both properties were formerly owned by the Coeur d'Alene Lake Land and Fruit Company, Inc. (the Company). Mrs. Farrell's late husband, Paul J. Huetter, was a director of the Company.

In 1910, the Company recorded a subdivision plat, entitled "Clam-se-net (Close to the Water)," with the intention of developing a resort. Located on the northeastern shore of Mica Bay, the subdivision lay within Government Lots 1 and 4 of Section 10, Township 49 North, Range 4 West of the Boise Meridian, in Kootenai County, Idaho. The plat included an unbounded area of undefined size and purpose between a street, Lake Shore Drive, and Coeur d'Alene Lake. It is the ownership of the strand of beach and waterfront that is in dispute in this action. The property involved is illustrated by the accompanying sketch.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

After the Clam-se-net plat was recorded, the Company never developed the intended resort. During the 1930's Kootenai County obtained an interest in the platted land because of nonpayment of taxes. In 1940 Kootenai County sold "Lots 1 to 21, Block 1; Lots 1 to 22, Block 2; Clam-se-net" by tax deed to W.L. Korter, the Browns' predecessor in interest. In 1958, by default judgment, Korter quieted title to these lots, together with appurtenances including any "riparian" (littoral) rights. Mrs. Farrell's then husband, Paul J. Huetter, was named and served as a defendant in Korter's action, not as an individual, but as a director of the Company.

The Browns acquired the lots from Korter by the same description as in the tax deed from the county to Korter, referring only to the Clam-se-net lot and block numbers. The Company's remaining property, described as "government lot one (1), and ... an unplatted part of government lot four (4)," was ultimately conveyed to the Huetters.

In 1958, the Browns petitioned for and obtained vacation by Kootenai County of the Clam-se-net plat. In vacating the plat, the board of county commissioners recited that the Browns were the sole owners of the property within Clam-se-net. Soon thereafter the Browns commissioned a survey of the property (the Kindler survey). In 1960, they sought to quiet title to the entire property formerly in the subdivision. However, their complaint included a description prepared by Kindler that did not correspond to the description on the face of the Clam-se-net plat. That action named Farrell and her then husband, Paul J. Huetter, as defendants. They were served but did not appear in the action and a default judgment was entered.

Almost twenty years later and relying on another survey (the Meckel survey), the Browns constructed a fence on their southeastern boundary adjoining the Huetter property. This fence extended nearly to the water. Because the fence interfered with access along the lake, the Huetters brought this action claiming title to the strand and alleging trespass by Brown.

The district court found that the Huetters' claim was barred by the judgments which had been entered in 1958 in favor of Korter, and in 1960 in favor of the Browns. In addition, the court concluded that, even if not barred, the Huetters had not proven any claim to the strand. The court denied relief and quieted title to the property, as described by the Kindler and Meckel surveys, in the Browns.

The Huetters contend that "government lot one ... [and] an unplatted part of government lot four ...," as described in their chain of title, includes the strand between Lake Shore Drive and the bed of the lake owned by the State of Idaho as a navigable body of water. See Heckman Ranches, Inc. v. State, 99 Idaho 793, 589 P.2d 540 (1979). In the alternative, they claim an interest in the strand either by adverse possession or by prescriptive easement. The Huetters do not claim that portion of the property laid out as the original lots and blocks of Clam-se-net subdivision. In contrast, the Browns counter that their property includes the strand that abuts the high-water mark. They claim their title was obtained either from Kootenai County or by adverse possession, and was quieted in prior actions.

We first address whether the Huetters' claim to ownership of the strand is barred by res judicata as a result of prior judgments quieting title to property in the Clam-se-net subdivision. In Aldape v. Akins, 105 Idaho 254, 668 P.2d 130 (Ct.App.1983), we adopted the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS (1982) "with its definitive treatment of claim preclusion" to clarify res judicata in Idaho. Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) is only applicable where specific issues actually have been litigated and decided. Pocatello Industrial Park Co. v. Steel West, Inc., 101 Idaho 783, 621 P.2d 399 (1980). Thus, a defaulting party ordinarily is not barred from later raising a particular issue which was not resolved in earlier litigation. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 27 comment e (1982) (hereinafter "RESTATEMENT (SECOND)").

Nevertheless, the policy of finality engendered in claim preclusion, or res judicata in the narrow sense, may work to bar a claim not actually raised in earlier litigation. Aldape v. Akins, supra. The doctrine bars relitigation by the parties of claims between them that were brought or should have been brought in a prior action. Particularly, in respect to a defendant's failure to assert a claim in a prior action between the parties, the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) provides:

§ 22. Effect of Failure to Interpose Counterclaim

....

(2) A defendant who may interpose a claim as a counterclaim in an action but fails to do so is precluded, after the rendition of judgment in that action, from maintaining an action on the claim if:

....

(b) The relationship between the counterclaim and the plaintiff's claim is such that successful prosecution of the second action would nullify the initial judgment or would impair rights established in the initial action. [Emphasis added.]

"The bar of claim preclusion, as set forth in the SECOND RESTATEMENT, applies with special force to quiet title actions." Aldape v. Akins, 105 Idaho at 259, 668 P.2d at 135. Cf. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) § 43. See generally Annotation, Doctrine of Res Judicata As Applied to Default Judgments, 77 A.L.R.2d 1419, § 16 (1961). As succinctly stated by Justice Cardozo,

A judgment in one action is conclusive in a later one, not only as to any matters actually litigated therein, but also as to any that might have been so litigated, when the two causes of action have such a measure of identity that a different judgment in the second would destroy or impair rights or interests established by the first.

Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B & C Nieberg Realty Corp., 250 N.Y. 304, 165 N.E. 456, 457 (1929).

In a quiet title action, the Idaho Supreme Court has suggested by dicta that a defendant's claim of title to disputed land "would appear to be [a] compulsory counterclaim" as defined in Rule 13(a), I.R.C.P. Hook v. Horner, 95 Idaho 657, 663, 517 P.2d 554, 560 (1973), citing 3 MOORE'S FED. PRACTICE, p 13.12 (1972). See also Smith v. Kessler, 22 Idaho 589, 127 P. 172 (1912). Complementary protection is provided to a defendant who successfully prevails against a plaintiff's quiet title action. A judgment against the plaintiff in such an action determines the title as between the parties and protects a noncounterclaiming defendant as fully as would an affirmative decree in his favor. Coghlan v. City of Boise, 36 Idaho 613, 212 P. 867 (1923). It serves both justice and judicial efficiency to similarly protect prevailing plaintiffs from subsequent claims by the defendant.

However, a prior judgment usually will not bar a claim by an individual omitted as a party in the earlier action, or where the same property was not the subject of that action. See Lawrence v. Ayres, 206 Okl. 218, 242 P.2d 142 (1952) (overruled on other grounds, Gardner v. Jones, 309 P.2d 731 (Okl.1957)); 50 C.J.S. Judgments § 652 (1947). This requirement of identity or privity with parties in the prior litigation is applicable to quiet title actions. Sutton v. Brown, 91 Idaho 396, 422 P.2d 63 (1966); Lewiston Lime Co. v. Barney, 87 Idaho 462, 394 P.2d 323 (1964). Only property rights of individuals made parties to a quiet title action are affected by the resulting judgment. Dalton Highway District of Kootenai County v. Sowder, 88 Idaho 556, 401 P.2d 813 (1965).

The Huetters contend that the default judgments previously entered in the Korter and Brown quiet title suits are not conclusive in the instant action, either because those judgments did not relate to the now disputed strand of property, or because their...