Jonasson v. Gibson

• Decision Date: 17 April 1985
• Docket Number: No. 15152,15152
• Citation: 108 Idaho 459,700 P.2d 81
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Parties: Marjorie JONASSON, Acting in her Official Capacity as Treasurer for the County of Ada, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David R. GIBSON, d/b/a Gibson Sale & Manufacturing, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 81

700 P.2d 81

108 Idaho 459

Marjorie JONASSON, Acting in her Official Capacity as Treasurer for the County of Ada, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David R. GIBSON, d/b/a Gibson Sale & Manufacturing, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15152.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

April 17, 1985.

David R. Gibson, pro se.

Greg H. Bower, Ada County Pros. Atty., Stephen A. Bradbury, Deputy Pros. Atty., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

SWANSTROM, Judge.

The plaintiff, Marjorie Jonasson, acting in her capacity as treasurer of Ada County, brought this suit in magistrate division to enforce a warrant of distraint and to collect delinquent personal property taxes assessed against the defendant, David Gibson. See I.C. § 63-1301 et seq. Gibson challenged both the subject matter and personal jurisdiction of the trial court; Jonasson moved for summary judgment. The court held hearings on the jurisdictional challenge and on the motion for summary judgment the same day. The magistrate found that he did have jurisdiction over both Gibson and the subject matter of the suit, that no genuine issues of material fact remained to be decided, and that Jonasson was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the magistrate granted summary judgment to Jonasson. Jonasson was also awarded attorney fees under I.C. § 12-121 after a hearing before a second magistrate. Gibson appealed to the district court, which affirmed the magistrates' decisions. Gibson has now appealed to us. We also affirm.

Gibson raises four issues on appeal. The first three concern the jurisdiction of a magistrate to try the case and enter judgment: (1) is summary judgment proper when jurisdiction is challenged; (2) can a "court of equity," to use Gibson's words, obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant absent his consent; and (3) did the magistrate have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit? The fourth issue concerns a question which, of late, has received extensive airings before this court, i.e., whether a state can compel payment of a judgment in federal reserve notes. It does not merit much discussion. We simply note it is well-settled that federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts, including judgments rendered by a state court. See State v. Gibson, 108 Idaho 202, 697 P.2d 1216 (Ct.App.1985); Herald v. State, 107 Idaho 640, 691 P.2d 1255 (Ct.App.1984). We need not address again Gibson's constitutional arguments about legal tender.

We now turn to the jurisdictional issues. Gibson initially contends that summary judgment is improper when the jurisdiction of the trial court is challenged. Following service of the complaint upon Gibson, he filed a "Special Appearance To Challenge Jurisdiction." Jonasson then filed her motion for summary judgment. The magistrate ruled first that he had jurisdiction over both the subject matter of the suit and the parties. After this ruling, he heard argument from both parties on Jonasson's motion for summary judgment and, determining that no genuine issues of material fact remained, granted the motion. Thus, summary judgment was not granted while there was an outstanding jurisdictional challenge. Gibson was given the opportunity to address the merits of the case on the motion for summary judgment and he exercised it. We find nothing defective with this procedure.

"To adjudicate a given claim, a court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim and the parties involved." Bonner Building Supply, Inc. v. Standard Forest Products, Inc., 106 Idaho 682, 685, 682 P.2d 635, 638 (Ct.App.1984). Gibson contends that the trial court had no personal jurisdiction over him because it was acting as a court of equity and a court of equity cannot exercise such jurisdiction without the consent of the parties before it. We note that the Idaho Constitution has eliminated the distinction between equity and law: "The distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity, and the forms of all such actions and suits, are hereby prohibited; and there shall be in this state but one form of action for the enforcement or protection of private rights or the redress of private wrongs, which shall be denominated a civil action." Idaho Const. art. V, § 1; see also Idaho Const. art. XXI, § 2; I.C. § 73-116. Thus, the jurisdiction of the court is not dependent upon whether the action is characterized as equitable or legal.

Our analysis of the merits of the issue involves a two-step process. We must determine the basis of jurisdiction and, then, the sufficiency of process. "A court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a party unless a proper basis exists. Basis refers to the relationship between the party and the territory of the state from which the court's authority derives." R. CASAD, JURISDICTION IN CIVIL ACTIONS p 1.01(2)(a) (1983) (hereinafter "Casad, Jurisdiction"). Consent is not now, nor has it ever been, the sole basis of personal jurisdiction. In addition to consent, there are two other traditional bases of jurisdiction--presence and domicile. Id. at p 2.02(1)(a)(i); see also Pennoyer v. Neff, 5 Otto 714, 720, 95 U.S. 714, 720, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878). Under the theory of jurisdiction enunciated in Pennoyer, the defendant's "physical connection to the state by virtue of his residence is an adequate basis for personal jurisdiction." Casad, Jurisdiction p 2.02(2)(b)(i). Although the theory of...