Keeler v. Keeler
| Decision Date | 13 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 20468,20468 |
| Citation | 124 Idaho 407,860 P.2d 23 |
| Parties | Judith K. KEELER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert B. KEELER, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Cameron L. Phillips, Coeur d'Alene, for defendant-respondent.
Judith Keeler (Judith) appeals from the district court's order dismissing her appeal from the magistrate's division. The magistrate denied Judith's motion for summary judgment with regard to Robert Keeler's (Robert) petition to modify spousal support. We affirm the dismissal order of the district court.
The decree of divorce in this case was entered in March 1988. Although the record does not show the nature of the modification, the decree evidently was modified in May 1988. In 1991, Robert filed a second petition to modify the decree. He sought relief from the spousal support requirement in the decree which incorporated a property settlement agreement (PSA) providing for the support of Judith. Judith moved to dismiss Robert's petition and for summary judgment on the ground that the PSA was integrated into the decree, thereby rendering the decree nonmodifiable with respect to the support provision. The magistrate denied Judith's motions on the ground that there is a presumption a PSA is not integrated into the subsequent decree; that there must be clear and convincing evidence presented to overcome this presumption; that there was not such evidence in the record; and, consequently, there were material facts yet to be decided before the court could resolve whether the decree should be modified.
Judith appealed to the district court from the order denying her motion for summary judgment. Robert moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that such an order was nonappealable. The district court agreed with Robert's position. The district court held that the petition for modification was a "new" action under I.R.C.P. 3(a) which ultimately would result in a final judgment or order and, therefore, the order denying the motion for summary judgment was not an "order entered after final judgment," appealable under I.A.R. 11(a)(7).
On this appeal from the district court proceeding, Judith challenges the district court's conclusion that the magistrate's order denying a motion for summary judgment in a proceeding for modification of the spousal support provisions in a divorce decree is not an appealable order. She asserts that the decree of divorce was a final judgment; that the order denying her motion for summary judgment was an order entered after the final judgment and, therefore, the order was appealable as a matter of right under I.A.R. 11(a)(7).
Idaho Code § 32-709 provides that the district court has continuing jurisdiction to modify the provisions of a divorce decree respecting maintenance or support. It states: "The provisions of any decree of divorce concerning maintenance or support may be modified ... upon a showing of a substantial and material change of circumstances." Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1), provides in relevant part:
An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, ... and shall set forth the relief or order sought.
It has been held that the predecessor to I.R.C.P. 7(b)(1) governs applications for modification of divorce decrees with respect to custody and child support issues. Clark v. Clark, 89 Idaho 91, 403 P.2d 570 (1965); Patton v. Patton, 88 Idaho 288, 399 P.2d 262 (1965). In considering the issue before us, we perceive no sound reason why Rule 7(b)(1) should not also apply to actions for modification of the spousal support provision in a divorce decree.
However, we need not address appellant's contention that interlocutory orders entered after an original divorce decree--such as a motion for summary judgment on a petition for modification--are "appealable" under Rule 11(a)(7). We find the controlling issue in this case to be whether or not the order denying the motion for summary judgment was "reviewable" by the district court sitting in its appellate capacity from the magistrate's division.
Idaho Code § 1-2213 is the statute addressing appeals to the district court. It recites "Appeals from final judgments of the magistrate's division shall be taken and heard in the manner prescribed by law or rule."
The following rules supplement I.C. § 1-2213, establishing when appeals may be taken to the district court from the magistrate's division. First, I.R.C.P. 83(a) states that:
An appeal must first be taken to the district judges division of the district court from any of the following judgments, orders or decisions rendered by a magistrate:
(1) A final judgment in a civil action or a special proceeding commenced [in], or assigned to, the magistrate's division of the district court.
(2) Any of the orders, judgments or decrees in an action in the magistrate's division which would be appealable from the district court to the Supreme Court under Rule 11 of the Idaho Appellate Rules.
However, I.R.C.P. 83(u), governing civil appeals from the magistrate's division to the district court, provides additional guidance as to the scope and standard of that review:
The scope of appellate review on an appeal to the district court shall be as follows:
(1) Upon an appeal from the magistrate's division of the district court, not involving a trial de novo, the district court shall review the case on the record and determine the appeal as an appellate court in the same manner and upon the same standards of review as an appeal from the district court to the Supreme Court under the statutes and laws of this state, and the appellate rules of the Supreme Court.
Thus, the thrust of the rules applicable to appeals from the magistrate's division to the district court requires the district court to abide by the same standards used by the Supreme Court in resolving appeals reviewed by that Court.
One of those standards observed by the Supreme Court was expressed in the case of State, Department of Law Enforcement v. One 1955 Willys Jeep, 100 Idaho 150, 595 P.2d 299 (1979). That case was an action for the forfeiture of a motor vehicle, under the Controlled Substances Act, brought by the State in the magistrate division. The owner of the vehicle moved for summary judgment on the ground that the case had not been brought to trial with a time certain required by the Act. The magistrate denied this motion, and the owner appealed to the district court. The district court reversed the magistrate's decision and remanded the case for a determination as to the cause for the delay in holding the trial. On remand the magistrate found that the delay was caused by the court and the court clerk's office and dismissed the case. This led to an appeal by the State, wherein the district court upheld the magistrate's dismissal of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gunter v. Murphy's Lounge, LLC
...44, 46, 720 P.2d 632, 634 (1986); Herrick v. Leuzinger, 127 Idaho 293, 305, 900 P.2d 201, 213 (Ct.App.1995); Keeler v. Keeler, 124 Idaho 407, 410, 860 P.2d 23, 26 (Ct.App.1993); Evans v. Jensen, 103 Idaho 937, 655 P.2d 454 (Ct.App.1982). The Keeler Court explained the rational behind the [B......
-
Leavitt v. Swain
...44, 46, 720 P.2d 632, 634 (1986); Herrick v. Leuzinger, 127 Idaho 293, 305, 900 P.2d 201, 213 (Ct.App.1995); Keeler v. Keeler, 124 Idaho 407, 410, 860 P.2d 23, 26 (Ct.App.1993); Evans v. Jensen, 103 Idaho 937, 941-42, 655 P.2d 454, 458-59 (Ct.App.1982). As explained in Herrick, "The rationa......
-
Herrick v. Leuzinger
...Watson v. Idaho Falls Consolidated Hospitals, Inc., 111 Idaho 44, 46, 720 P.2d 632, 634 (1986); Keeler v. Keeler, 124 Idaho 407, 410, 860 P.2d 23, 26 (Ct.App.1993); Evans v. Jensen, 103 Idaho 937, 655 P.2d 454 (Ct.App.1982). The rationale for this rule is that, once all the evidence has bee......
-
Garcia v. Windley
...355, 358 (2005) (quoting Gunter v. Murphy's Lounge, LLC, 141 Idaho 16, 26, 105 P.3d 676, 686 (2005) (quoting Keeler v. Keeler, 124 Idaho 407, 410, 860 P.2d 23, 26 (Ct.App.1993) (emphasis Garcia is not appealing the overruling of any objections to the mitigation evidence presented at trial; ......