Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. of New York v. Cazier

Citations: 908 P.2d 572; 127 Idaho 879; 1995 Ida. App. LEXIS 137Docket: 21438, 21512

Court: Idaho Court of Appeals; November 27, 1995; Idaho; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

NationsBanc Mortgage Corporation of New York pursued eviction against C. Drake Cazier and his family from a one-acre parcel in Athol, Idaho, following a foreclosure on the property. The court granted NationsBanc summary judgment on claims of ejectment, trespass, and quiet title, with damages for trespass to be determined later. 

The property was originally sold by James Yarbrough to Shanta Homes, Inc., which Cazier controlled. Shanta Homes defaulted on the deed of trust, leading to foreclosure by the trustee in 1990, after which NationsBanc acquired the property. Despite the foreclosure, the Caziers continued to reside on the parcel without payment. 

Initially, unlawful detainer proceedings were initiated, but the magistrate court dismissed this claim, ruling that it had transformed into ownership and title issues, which it did not have the authority to resolve. The magistrate allowed NationsBanc to amend its complaint to include claims for ejectment, trespass, and quiet title before transferring the case to the district court. 

Subsequently, the district court ruled in favor of NationsBanc through summary judgment, and C. Drake Cazier's motion for reconsideration of this ruling was denied.

Drake Cazier filed a motion for summary judgment and dismissal, arguing that the legal description of the one-acre house lot was flawed and that such a parcel could not exist as described in the complaint. The district court denied Cazier's motions on June 14, 1994, and subsequently ruled in favor of Keycorp on July 11, 1994, confirming Keycorp's ownership of the lot based on a survey by Patrick Moore, ordering eviction of the Caziers as trespassers, and holding them liable for damages. The Caziers appealed this judgment.

The Caziers contended that it was an error for the magistrate to transfer the case to the district court after dismissing the unlawful detainer claim, arguing that this dismissal ended the case and the magistrate's jurisdiction. The magistrate found that the Caziers were tenants at sufferance, not in a landlord-tenant relationship, and therefore dismissed the claim. Keycorp was granted leave to amend its complaint to include claims of ejectment, trespass, and quiet title, which the magistrate determined were appropriate for the district court due to the nature of the claims and the evidence presented.

In assessing the summary judgment, the Caziers claimed that the district court improperly relied on a survey by Keycorp's expert that did not conform to government surveying standards. They argued that Keycorp did not acquire an interest in the land through the foreclosure sale due to flaws in the legal description of the parcel. The review of the summary judgment focused on whether there was a genuine issue of material fact and if Keycorp was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is warranted when the reviewed materials demonstrate no genuine issue of fact when viewed favorably for the opposing party. The district court assessed whether a valid land description existed, concluding that the description of the one-acre lot was ambiguous. It utilized rules of construction, focusing on the parties' intent, and determined that the description could be surveyed, with the house located within it, thus granting summary judgment to Keycorp. Courts must aim to fulfill the parties' intentions in deed interpretation, treating ambiguities as factual matters to be resolved through the surrounding context. Keycorp's motion was supported by testimony from James Yarbrough, the grantor, who indicated his intent to create a legal description encompassing the home and road access. The Caziers did not provide evidence disputing this intent, only arguing that the legal description was flawed due to two potential starting points. Keycorp's expert, Patrick Moore, confirmed that the legal description could be surveyed and accurately located the house within the described area. The Caziers' failure to present evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact led the court to accept Moore's uncontroverted testimony, upholding the viability of the legal description. Additionally, C. Drake Cazier filed a summary judgment motion after the court's decision on Keycorp's motion, despite not filing a cross motion earlier.

Cazier's motion to argue that the legal description was a nullity was denied, and this denial was deemed non-appealable. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Keycorp. In a subsequent motion for reconsideration, Cazier presented affidavits from two new surveyor witnesses to challenge the Moore survey's accuracy and claimed it did not comply with governmental standards but did not provide a valid independent survey. The district court recognized the witnesses as experts for factual opinions but ruled they could not opine on legal matters or make conclusory statements. Ultimately, the district court found no new evidence created a material fact issue, leading to the denial of Cazier's reconsideration motion. The court concluded that regardless of the starting point for the survey, the property remained unchanged, affirming Cazier's lack of evidence to dispute this. The court upheld the transfer of Keycorp's amended complaint to the district court, confirmed the summary judgment, and denied Cazier's reconsideration. Keycorp was awarded attorneys' fees based on the deed of trust's provisions, making the Caziers and associated parties liable for these fees. Costs on appeal were also awarded to Keycorp.