PATRICIA J. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
RONALD L. THOMPSON, Defendant-Respondent.
Opinion No. 45
from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State
of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. D. Duff McKee, District Judge;
Hon. Debra A. Orr, Magistrate.
of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the
magistrate, affirming denial of motion for relief from
judgment and grant of motion to dismiss, affirmed.
Strother Law Office; Jeffrey A. Strother, Boise, for
appellant. Jeffrey A. Strother argued.
Ludwig, Shoufler, Miller, Johnson, PLLC; Daniel A. Miller,
Boise, for respondent. Daniel A. Miller argued.
J. Thompson appeals from the district court's order
affirming the magistrate's denial of Patricia's
motion for relief from judgment and granting Ronald L.
Thompson's motion to dismiss and award of attorney fees.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
and Ronald stipulated to a judgment and decree of divorce on
July 23, 2013. The magistrate entered its judgment and decree
of divorce on August 21, 2013. The judgment states,
"[Patricia] shall own, control and as beneficiary be
entitled to continue in effect, at her sole expense, the
current Term Life Policy on [Ronald]." The judgment also
states, "Each party shall execute any and all documents
necessary to effectuate the terms and conditions set forth
October 30, 2014, Patricia filed a motion for relief from
judgment pursuant to Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 60(a),
60(b)(5), and 60(b)(6). In her motion, Patricia asserted that
between July 23, 2013, and August 21, 2013, she contacted the
insurance company regarding the status of the life insurance
policy. The company informed her that the annual premium on
the policy had been paid through August 2014. She again
contacted the insurance company in June 2014 and learned that
the policy had expired. She then contacted Ronald's
attorney, who informed Patricia that the policy had expired
on September 26, 2013, and the premiums were never paid
through August 2014. In her motion, Patricia argued it was
not equitable to enforce the judgment as written because the
policy had lapsed, and Ronald had breached his fiduciary duty
and/or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
associated with the parties' stipulation.
moved to dismiss pursuant to I.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), arguing
Patricia's motion for relief from judgment failed to
state claims upon which relief could be granted. Both sides
filed affidavits in support of their arguments. Patricia
moved for time to conduct discovery pursuant to I.R.C.P.
56(f),  arguing the magistrate should treat
Ronald's motion to dismiss as a motion for summary
judgment pursuant to I.R.C.P 56, and discovery would allow
Patricia to establish the insurance company sent notices
regarding the life insurance policy to Ronald. The magistrate
held a hearing on all the motions and entered an order
granting Ronald's motion to dismiss, denying
Patricia's motion to continue and, in effect, denying
Patricia's motion for relief from judgment.
appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed
the magistrate's decision, holding Ronald did not owe
Patricia any duty with regard to the life insurance policy
and awarding attorney fees to Ronald. Patricia timely appeals
from the district court's order.
asserts the district court erred in affirming the
magistrate's denial of both Patricia's motion for
relief from judgment and her motion for continuance, as well
as granting Ronald's motion to dismiss and award of
attorney fees. For an appeal from the district court, sitting
in its appellate capacity over a case from the magistrate
division, this Court's standard of review is the same as
expressed by the Idaho Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
reviews the magistrate record to determine whether there is
substantial and competent evidence to support the
magistrate's findings of fact and whether the
magistrate's conclusions of law follow from those
findings. Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855, 858-59,
303 P.2d 214, 217-18 (2013). If those findings are so
supported and the conclusions follow therefrom, and if the
district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we
affirm the district court's decision as a matter ...