Safaris Unlimited, LLC v. Von Jones

• Decision Date: 29 June 2018
• Docket Number: Docket No. 44914
• Citation: 163 Idaho 874,421 P.3d 205
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: SAFARIS UNLIMITED, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Appellant, v. Mike VON JONES, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Respondent.

163 Idaho 874

421 P.3d 205

SAFARIS UNLIMITED, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Appellant,

v.Mike VON JONES, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Respondent.

Docket No. 44914

Supreme Court of Idaho, Rexburg, May 2018 Term.

Filed: June 29, 2018

Williams, Meservy & Lothspeich, LLP, Jerome, for appellant.Theodore R. Larsen argued.

Worst, Fitzgerald & Stover, PLLC, Twin Falls, for respondent.David W. Gadd argued.

BURDICK, Chief Justice.

This appeal comes from the Twin Falls County district court.In January 2017, a jury in that court found that an enforceable contract bound Mike Von Jones to pay Safaris Unlimited, LLC, (Safaris) $26,040 for a 2012 big game hunt Jones went on in Zimbabwe, Africa (2012 hunt).After the jury's verdict, Safaris was awarded attorney fees plus interest on the judgment, bringing the judgment against Jones to $122,984.82.Safaris obtained a writ of execution in June 2017 and attended the sheriff sale as the only bidder.At the sale, Safaris purchased a pending lawsuit arising from Jones's business venture by making a $2,500 credit bid.Jones was later successful in moving to vacate the sale.

Jones appeals three issues from the jury trial: (1) the admission of a handwriting exemplar; (2) certain statements made by the district court concerning the handwriting exemplar; and (3) a jury instruction on agency law.Safaris cross appeals the district court's decision to vacate the sheriff sale.For the reasons below, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case comes to this Court on appeal for the second time.In July 2015, we reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment to Safaris after concluding triable issues of fact surrounded whether an enforceable contract bound Jones to pay Safaris for the 2012 hunt.Safaris Unlimited, LLC v. Von Jones(Safaris I ), 158 Idaho 846, 850–51, 353 P.3d 1080, 1084–85(2015).In seeking to establish the existence of an enforceable contract, Safaris pointed to an invoice for the 2012 hunt that Jones purportedly signed, but this Court rejected that argument.Id.As we explained in Safaris I , "the purported signature of Jones at the bottom of an invoice is not sufficient to show any kind of contract between Jones and Safaris Unlimited for the 2012 hunt."Id. at 851, 353 P.3d at 1085.

On remand, a three-day jury trial was held in January 2017.Safaris called three witnesses.

Jones testified as the only witness in his defense.Jones testified, as relevant here, that a hunting application and an invoice for the 2012 hunt did not contain his authentic signature.Jones's testimony contradicted the testimony of Safaris's witnesses.As such, Safaris moved to admit a handwriting exemplar, exhibit 40, so as to allow the jury to determine whether the hunting application and invoice for the 2012 hunt contained Jones's authentic signature.Outside the jury's presence, Jones initially admitted exhibit 40 contained his authentic signature.But when later questioned in front of the jury about his signature on exhibit 40, he equivocated and hedged his testimony when Safaris's counsel began laying a foundation for its admission.Jones's equivocation prompted the district court to intervene by instructing Jones to give a "yes-or-no answer" to whether exhibit 40 contained his authentic signature.Jones eventually confirmed that exhibit 40 contained his authentic signature, and it was admitted into evidence.

After the district court charged the jury, the jury deliberated for approximately 81 minutes before reaching a unanimous verdict in Safaris's favor.The jury found that an enforceable contract existed between Jones and Safaris to bind Jones to pay Safaris $26,040 for the 2012 hunt.The district court thus entered judgment in Safaris's favor on January 17, 2017, and later amended that judgment by awarding Safaris interest and attorney fees on April 17, 2017.Under the amended judgment, Safaris was awarded $122,984.82.

By June 2017, Safaris had collected $287.01 on the judgment against Jones.Safaris petitioned for and obtained a writ of execution.The writ of execution, issued on June 2, 2017, reads in relevant part:

NOW, THEREFORE, you, the Sheriff, are hereby required to satisfy said Judgment, including accrued interest, out of the personal and real property of Mike Von Jones, including,

without limitation, all right, title, claim, and interest of DefendantMike Von Jones in and to all claims, demands, damages, debts, liabilities, accounts, reckonings, obligations, bonds, guarantees, warranties, costs, expenses, losses, liens, actions, and causes of action of each and every kind, nature and description, whether now known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which Jones might have, own, or hold, or at any time heretofore ever had, owned, or held against Jeremy Sligar and/or Overtime Garage, LLC, including, without limitation, those claims that are the subject of the lawsuit of Mike Jones v. Jeremy Sligar and Overtime Garage, LLC;Twin Falls County CaseNo. CV42-16-1554, [ (the Sligar litigation¹ ) ] and any and all proceeds thereon,

and make return of this Writ within twenty (20) days after receipt hereof, entering that which you have done thereon.

The sheriff sale was conducted as scheduled, and Safaris, the only bidder in attendance, purchased the Sligar litigation by making a $2,500 credit bid.Jones did not attend the sale.Jones, however, was successful in moving to vacate the sale.

Jones timely appeals the admission of exhibit 40 as a handwriting exemplar, statements made by the district court concerning exhibit 40, and a jury instruction concerning agency law.Safaris timely cross appeals the district court's decision to vacate the sheriff sale.

II.ISSUES ON APPEAL

1.Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting exhibit 40 as a handwriting exemplar?

2.Did the district court violate Jones's procedural due process rights by instructing Jones to answer whether he signed exhibit 40?

3.Did the district court err by giving jury instruction 13?

4.Did the district court abuse its discretion by setting aside the sheriff sale?

5.Should attorney fees be awarded on appeal?

III.ANALYSIS

A.The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting exhibit 40 as a handwriting exemplar.

Jones contends the district court abused its discretion by admitting exhibit 40 as a handwriting exemplar after Jones disputed whether the signatures on exhibits 34 and 35 were authentic.²Exhibit 34 is the invoice for the 2012 hunt that Jones purportedly signed.Exhibit 35 is a hunting application for the 2012 hunt that Jones purportedly signed.Exhibit 40 is a temporary protective order that was entered in the Sligar litigation, but all contents, less Jones's signature, were redacted.Exhibit 40 was therefore offered and admitted for the limited purpose of allowing the jury to compare Jones's signatures on exhibits 34, 35, and 40 to determine whether the signatures on exhibits 34 and 35 were authentic.

Jones contends the district court erred by admitting exhibit 40 into evidence as a handwriting exemplar, and therefore, "[v]acation of the jury verdict and remand for a new trial is required."Idaho Rule of Evidence 901(b)(3) specifically authorizes handwriting comparisons to be performed "by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated."³AccordD. Craig Lewis, Idaho Trial Handbook§ 21:2 (2d ed. 2017).As an evidentiary decision, the district court's decision to admit exhibit 40 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.E.g. , Mulford v. Union Pac. R.R. , 156 Idaho 134, 138, 321 P.3d 684, 688(2014).To determine whether the district court abused its discretion, this Court evaluates whether the district court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with relevant legal standards; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason.Lunneborg v. My Fun Life , slip op. 45200 at p. 7, 163 Idaho 856, 421 P.3d 187, 2018 WL 3150964(June 28, 2018).Jones does not isolate which prong of the abuse of discretion standard he targets.In fact, he does not identify the abuse of discretion standard at all.However, given that Jones contends the admission of exhibit 40 contravenes case law holding that handwriting exemplars are admissible except in "extreme and unusual" circumstances, Jones's argument implicates whether the district court failed to act consistently with relevant legal standards.

In support of Jones's "[e]xtreme and unusual" circumstances argument, he cites to federal case law that posits "extreme and unusual" circumstances involve instances in which "the authenticity of the handwriting is the primary issue in the case, as where forgery is alleged."United States v. Jenkins , 785 F.2d 1387, 1395(9th Cir.1986).In this case, forgery was never alleged.Further, the authenticity of Jones's signatures on exhibits 34 and 35 was not the primary issue in the case.The primary issue was whether an enforceable contract bound Jones to pay Safaris.The authenticity of Jones's signature on exhibits 34 and 35 is not outcome determinative of that issue.As this Court succinctly explained in Safaris I , "the purported signature of Jones at the bottom of an invoice is not sufficient to show any kind of contract between Jones and Safaris Unlimited for the 2012 hunt."158 Idaho at 851, 353 P.3d at 1085.While Jones refers to the authenticity of his signature on exhibits 34 and 35 as "a central issue," it is clearly not "the primary issue" in this case.

Jones identifies several circumstances that he calls "extreme and unusual."First, Jones contends he had no opportunity to rebut the irrelevant and prejudicial contents of exhibit 40.Below, Jones objected to the admission of exhibit 40 by pointing to "the amount of confusion the jury's going to face ....There's so much in that document...