Wolford v. Montee
| Decision Date | 23 November 2016 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 42719/43007 |
| Citation | 387 P.3d 100,161 Idaho 432 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Robert WOLFORD, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Shawn MONTEE and Heather Montee, husband and wife; Shawn Montee, Inc., an Idaho corporation dba Shawn Montee Timber Company; and Abco Wood Recycling, LLC., an Idaho limited liability company, Defendants-Appellants. |
Paul W. Daugharty, Coeur d'Alene, argued for appellants.
Witherspoon, Kelley, Coeur d'Alene, for respondent. Mark A. Ellingsen argued.
BURDICK, Justice Shawn and Heather Montee, Shawn Montee, Inc., and ABCO Wood Recycling, LLC (collectively "Appellants" and individually "Montee," "Montee, Inc.," and "ABCO") appeal, among other things, the Kootenai County District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondent, Robert Wolford (Wolford). Appellants argue the district court erred in ruling that certain promissory notes (Notes) granted to Wolford by Appellants were clear and unambiguous and that under the terms of those notes Appellants were in default and Wolford was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellants also state that several of their motions were erroneously denied, including a motion to continue, a motion for examination of Wolford, a motion to amend or alter judgment, and various motions to quash. Additionally, Appellants appeal the district court's order of contempt entered against them. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.
On May 12, 2009, Montee executed a handwritten promissory note (2009 Note). That note, executed by Montee personally, provides as follows:
?
On February 16, 2010, a second promissory note was executed by Montee in favor of Wolford, which, unlike the first, was executed on behalf of Montee's companies, Montee, Inc. and ABCO (2010 Note). That note provides in pertinent part:
On June 11, 2014, Wolford filed a "Complaint for Money Due" alleging that the Notes were in default and requesting judgment for the amounts due and owing. Appellants disputed the intent of the parties in drafting the Notes; however, they admitted the existence of the Notes and did not deny that the Notes were in default. On August 15, 2014, Wolford moved for summary judgment. Appellants filed a motion to continue the motion for summary judgment on September 2, 2014.
Oral argument was held on September 17, 2014. At oral argument, the district court denied the motion to continue. On September 19, 2014, the district court issued its memorandum decision and order, granting Wolford's motion for summary judgment. The district court then entered two judgments. The first judgment, based on the 2009 Note, was entered against "Shawn Montee and the marital community comprised of Shawn Montee and Heather Montee, husband and wife," in the amount of $2,321,037.71. The second judgment, based on the 2010 Note, was entered against "Shawn Montee, Inc., an Idaho corporation d/b/a Shawn Montee Timber Company and Abco Wood Recycling, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, jointly and severally" in the amount of $2,161,464.91.
Appellants filed various motions, including a motion to prohibit issuance of writs of execution and an emergency motion to quash writs of execution, which were denied by the district court. Thereafter, Wolford's writs of execution against Shawn and Heather Montee and Montee, Inc. and ABCO were returned unsatisfied. The court then entered an order of examination of judgment debtors, Shawn and Heather Montee. Appellants moved to quash that order, and the district court denied their motion. Shawn and Heather Montee did not produce the specified documents or appear for questioning as required in the order of examination. Based on their failure to comply with the examination order, the district court entered an order of contempt against Shawn and Heather Montee. Citing concern that Montee was avoiding payment on the judgment by fraudulently transferring assets to recently created out-of-state businesses, Wolford requested an injunction to prevent Montee from creating more out-of-state business entities and from transferring assets. The court granted the injunction. Appellants timely appeal.
Appellants contend the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the Notes were not clear and unambiguous and that there were genuine issues of fact regarding the nature of the Notes, specifically whether the 2009 Note was a condition contract and whether the 2010 Note was intended to replace the 2009 Note. Further, Appellants argue that neither the 2009 Note nor the 2010 Note was in default and the district court erred in concluding otherwise. Finally, Appellants assert that the district court erred in failing to provide an offset against the Notes' amounts based on various items Montee delivered to Wolford.1
We find the district court was correct in determining that the 2009 Note was clear and unambiguous. However, we find the district court erred in its determination that the 2010 Note was clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment based on the 2009 Note but vacate and remand summary judgment on the 2010 Note.
As an initial matter, Appellants argue the district court erroneously denied their motion to continue summary judgment. This argument fails.
"The decision to grant or deny a Rule 56(f) continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court." Taylor v. AIA Servs. Corp. , 151 Idaho 552, 572, 261 P.3d 829, 849 (2011). When seeking a continuance under Rule 56(f), the moving party must "affirmatively demonstrate[ ] why he cannot respond to a movant's affidavits ... and how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable him, by discovery or other means, to rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact. " Jenkins v. Boise Cascade Corp. , 141 Idaho 233, 239, 108 P.3d 380, 386 (2005). "The movant ‘has the burden of setting out what further discovery would reveal that is essential to justify their opposition, making clear what information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment.’ "
Boise Mode, LLC v. Donahoe Pace & Partners Ltd. , 154 Idaho 99, 104, 294 P.3d 1111, 1116 (2013) (quoting Jenkins , 141 Idaho at 239, 108 P.3d at 386 ).
Here, the district court noted the grant of a continuance was within its discretion. Next, the district court, citing Jenkins , properly noted the applicable law requiring the movant for continuance set forth by affidavit "what additional discovery is necessary and why such discovery is pertinent to rebut the pending motion for summary judgment." The court then reviewed the affidavit submitted with the motion and concluded that the affidavit failed "to state specific facts demonstrating why the depositions of Robert Wolford and Nellie Jacobsen are needed to respond to Wolford's motion for summary judgment, and fails to set forth how such evidence would be relevant to summary judgment." Thus, because counsel's affidavit failed to meet the applicable legal standard for granting a motion to continue, the district court denied the motion.
After reviewing the affidavit attached to the motion, we find the district court is correct. There is simply no mention as to what the depositions of Wolford or Jacobsen would reveal, let alone how information from those depositions would preclude summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision to deny the motion to continue. See Boise Mode , 154 Idaho at 104, 294 P.3d at 1116 ; Jenkins , 141 Idaho at 239, 108 P.3d at 386.
This Court exercises free review over appeals from a district court's grant of summary judgment and applies the same standard the district court used in ruling on the motion. Taylor v. McNichols , 149 Idaho 826, 832, 243 P.3d 642, 648 (2010). Under that standard, summary judgment is proper 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). "If there is no genuine issue of material fact, only a question of law remains, over which this Court exercises free review." Cristo Viene Pentecostal Church v. Paz , 144 Idaho 304, 307, 160 P.3d 743, 746 (2007). This Court will "construe the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, drawing all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Jenkins , 141 Idaho at 238, 108 P.3d at 385. However, "the adverse party may not rest upon mere allegations in the pleadings, but must set forth by affidavit specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial." Rhodehouse v. Stutts , 125 Idaho 208, 211, 868 P.2d 1224, 1227 (1994).
When an action will be tried without a jury, the trial court "is entitled to arrive at the most probable inferences based upon the undisputed evidence properly before it and grant the summary judgment despite the possibility of conflicting inferences." P.O. Ventures, Inc. v. Loucks Family Irrevocable Trust , 144 Idaho 233, 237, 159 P.3d 870, 874 (2007). Resolution of conflicting inferences is "within the responsibilities of the fact finder." Id. "This Court exercises free review over the entire record that was before the district judge to determine whether either side was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and reviews the inferences drawn by the district judge to determine whether the record reasonably supports those inferences." Id.
Here, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial