Silver Eagle Mining Co. v.

• Decision Date: 29 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 38059.,38059.
• Citation: 280 P.3d 679,153 Idaho 176
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: SILVER EAGLE MINING COMPANY, (as successor-in-interest to Aberdeen Idaho Mining Company ), Plaintiff–Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, and its successors and assigns; John Does I–X, and their heirs, successors, and assigns; and Unknown Owners and Unknown Claimants, and their heirs, successors, and assigns, and any other person claiming any title, right, interest, or equity in the following described property location in the County of Shoshone, State of Idaho, to wit: (see file for complete description of property), Defendants–Respondents.

153 Idaho 176
280 P.3d 679

SILVER EAGLE MINING COMPANY, (as successor-in-interest to Aberdeen Idaho Mining Company ), Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
STATE of Idaho, and its successors and assigns; John Does I–X, and their heirs, successors, and assigns; and Unknown Owners and Unknown Claimants, and their heirs, successors, and assigns, and any other person claiming any title, right, interest, or equity in the following described property location in the County of Shoshone, State of Idaho, to wit: (see file for complete description of property), Defendants–Respondents.

No. 38059.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Coeur d'Alene, April 2012 Term.

June 29, 2012.

280 P.3d 680

John F. Magnuson, Coeur d'Alene, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondents. Steven Schuster argued.

HORTON, Justice.

153 Idaho 177

This matter arises out of a dispute between Silver Eagle Mining Co. (Silver Eagle) and the State of Idaho (State) regarding ownership of property in Shoshone County on which Silver Eagle had located sixteen mining claims. After Silver Eagle filed an action against the State to quiet title in the mining claims, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State on the ground of claim preclusion because the Department of the Interior Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) had previously found Silver Eagle's mining claims void ab initio. Silver Eagle appeals, arguing that claim preclusion does not apply because the IBLA decision did not address the same claim as Silver Eagle's present action against the State. Additionally, Silver Eagle contends that the State is collaterally estopped from asserting title to the subject property and asks this Court to vacate the judgment of the district court and enter judgment in its favor. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Aberdeen Idaho Mining Company (Aberdeen), Silver Eagle's predecessor-in-interest, located sixteen mining claims on the property that is the subject of this appeal (the subject property) between July 6, 1940 and August 10, 1951:

IMC		LOCATION
CLAIM NO.	CLAIM NAME	DATE
17737	Wilkie No. 21	August 10, 1951
17744	Wilkie No. 6	July 6, 1940
17745	Wilkie No. 19	October 9, 1946
17746	Wilkie No. 9	July 28, 1945
17747	Wilkie No. 10	July 28, 1945
17748	Wilkie No. 20	October 9, 1946
17749	Wilkie No. 19Fra.	October 19, 1946
17750	Wilkie No. 9Fra.	October 9, 1946
17751	Wilkie No. 12	September 1, 1945
17752	Wilkie No. 12Fra.	October 10, 1946
17754	Wilkie No. 8	July 6, 1940
17755	Wilkie No. 15Fra.	October 15, 1946
17756	Wilkie No. 14	August 12, 1945
17757	Wilkie No. 15	September 1, 1945
17758	Wilkie No. 16	August 19, 1945
17759	Wilkie No. 17	August 19, 1945

280 P.3d 681

153 Idaho 178

The claims at issue are located in Section 16, Township 48 North, Range 3 East, Boise Meridian, Shoshone County, Idaho (Section 16), and Aberdeen maintained the claims in accordance with all federal requirements.

In September of 1999, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a decision declaring that all sixteen of Aberdeen's claims were void ab initio because Section 16 was not open for mineral entry at the time Aberdeen located the claims. The following month, Aberdeen filed a notice of appeal with the IBLA. Aberdeen also filed a quiet title action in the district court of the First Judicial District of Idaho in February of 2000 and later amended its complaint to include a claim for declaratory relief. The district court granted the State's motion to stay the proceedings pending resolution of Aberdeen's appeal to the IBLA. On October 1, 2001, the IBLA affirmed the BLM's determination that Aberdeen's mining claims were void ab initio, and neither Aberdeen nor Silver Eagle appealed this decision. Aberdeen conveyed its interest in the subject mining claims to Silver Eagle on May 16, 2002 and the district court substituted Silver Eagle as plaintiff in the present action on May 13, 2008. Upon stipulation by the parties, the district court lifted the stay on May 27, 2008. On July 28, 2008, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State on the ground that the IBLA decision was a valid final judgment that adjudicated the same claim between the same parties as the quiet title action, and Silver Eagle was therefore barred from further litigation by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Silver Eagle appeals and asks this Court to vacate the district court's judgment and enter judgment in its favor or, alternatively, remand for further proceedings.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Whether the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) bars Silver Eagle's claim to quiet title as against the State.

2. Whether the doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) prevents the State from asserting its claim to title.

3. Whether the doctrine of quasi-estoppel precludes summary judgment.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court reviews a district court's grant of summary judgment using the same standard a district court uses when it rules on the motion. Waller v. Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare, 146 Idaho 234, 237, 192 P.3d 1058, 1061 (2008) (citing Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion, 144 Idaho 119, 122, 157 P.3d 613, 616 (2007) ). Thus, summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c). Under this standard, the "facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Waller, 146 Idaho at 237, 192 P.3d at 1061 (citing Ticor Title Co., 144 Idaho at 122, 157 P.3d at 616).

"Res judicata is comprised of claim preclusion (true res judicata ) and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)." Navarro v. Yonkers, 144 Idaho 882, 885, 173 P.3d 1141, 1144 (2007) (quoting Hindmarsh v. Mock, 138 Idaho 92, 94, 57 P.3d 803, 805 (2002) ). "This Court exercises free review over the question of whether an action is barred by res judicata." Kootenai Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Lamar Corp., 148 Idaho 116, 119, 219 P.3d 440, 443 (2009) (citing C Sys., Inc. v. McGee, 145 Idaho 559, 561, 181 P.3d 485, 487 (2008) ). Generally, estoppel theories "present mixed questions of law and fact." Allen v. Reynolds, 145 Idaho 807, 812, 186 P.3d 663, 668 (2008) (citing The Highlands, Inc. v. Hosac, 130 Idaho 67, 69, 936 P.2d 1309, 1311 (1997) ). However, mixed questions are primarily questions of law, and therefore this Court exercises free review. Id.

280...