ACTION COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
HARMONY L. BLACK, aka McCULLOUGH, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal
from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State
of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. George D. Carey, District
Judge.
Judgment
of the district court, vacated.
Thomas
J. Katsilometes, PLLC; Boise, for appellant. Thomas J.
Katsilometes argued.
Shearer & Bonney, PC; Shaun R. Bonney, Boise, for
respondent. Shaun R. Bonney argued.
HUSKEY, Judge
Harmony
L. Black appeals from the judgment awarding Action Collection
Service, Inc. (ACS) an amount of $3, 546.40 for a debt
originally owed to the Idaho Department of Juvenile
Correction (IDJC) which was then assigned to ACS. Black
asserts the district court: (1) erred in finding that a
contract existed between IDJC and ACS; (2) abused its
discretion by determining that the hearing held in the
district court constituted a hearing under Idaho Code §
20-524; and (3) erred in finding IDJC's assignment to ACS
valid. The district court's judgment awarding ACS the
amount of $3, 546.40 is vacated.
I.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In
September 2007, Black's minor child was placed in
IDJC's custody. At that time, the magistrate did not
order Black to reimburse IDJC for her child's support or
treatment. While in custody, IDJC expended costs for the
child's support and treatment. From time to time, IDJC
sent notices to Black, asserting Black was obliged to
contribute $235.00 a month to pay for her child's support
and treatment pursuant to I.C. § 20-524. However, Black
never agreed to pay that amount. Yet, in the last two months
of the child's custody in IDJC, Black made two payments
of $235.00 to IDJC. Black claimed those payments amounted to
ransom for her child's release. Black's child was
released from IDJC's custody in July 2009. Despite the
absence of any court order requiring payment, IDJC determined
it was entitled to $4, 465.00 reimbursement from Black for
its treatment and support of her child, which IDJC calculated
according to the $235.00 monthly rate with a reduction for
the two previous payments. At no point did IDJC request a
court hearing to determine whether $4, 465.00 was a
reasonable sum of payment.[1] Rather, IDJC attempted, without
success, to collect the reimbursement from Black.
IDJC
then assigned Black's alleged debt to ACS in December
2009 pursuant to a blanket assignment agreement entered in
May 2006 between IDJC and ACS. The first paragraph of that
contract states the contract extends through May 2007.
However, a later paragraph of the contract states the
contract remains in force until terminated by giving fifteen
days written notice. At no point did IDJC or ACS terminate
the contract by providing written notice. After ACS
attempted, without success, to collect from Black, ACS
brought suit in March 2012 against Black to recover $4,
465.00. In addition, ACS sought an additional 33 percent fee
for collecting Black's alleged debt, in the amount of $1,
473.45, pursuant to its contract with IDJC and I.C. §
67-2358(1)(b). ACS also sought pre-judgment interest on the
alleged debt. The magistrate granted ACS's motion for
summary judgment in the case, awarding $5, 938.45 in
principal, $1, 306.47 in interest, $2, 595.00 in attorney
fees, and $118.00 in costs, for a total of $9, 957.92. Black
appealed the magistrate's decision and judgment to the
district court. The district court vacated the judgment and
remanded the case to the magistrate. ACS appealed the
district court's decision. This Court affirmed the
district court's decision in part and remanded the case
to the magistrate court.
Upon
remand, the magistrate conducted one full day of trial in
February 2016, but then identified a conflict with the case
and the trial was continued until July 2016, when it was
resumed by an assigned district court judge. The district
court entered judgment for ACS in the amount of $3, 546.40,
including a 33 percent collection fee in the amount of
$884.40 under I.C. § 67-2358(1)(b), but did not grant
pre-judgment interest because the principal amount was not
mathematically or definitely ascertainable. The district
court found that the blanket assignment agreement between
IDJC and ACS remained in force during IDJC's 2009
assignment of Black's debt to ACS, found that the trial
constituted a hearing under I.C. § 20-524, and entered
judgment for ACS. Black timely appeals to this Court.
II.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
When a
trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on
appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry
to determine whether the lower court correctly perceived the
issue as one of discretion; acted within the boundaries of
such discretion and consistently with any legal standards
applicable to the specific choices before it; and reached its
decision by an exercise ...