MEDICAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant,
YVONNE UGAKI-HICKS, Defendant-Respondent.
April 2018 Term
from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District of the
State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Mitchell W. Brown,
decision of the district court is affirmed. No costs
or attorney fees are awarded.
Driscoll & Associates, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for appellant.
SCHROEDER, Justice pro tem
Nature of the Case
Recovery Services, LLC ("MRS"), appeals a district
court decision that affirmed a magistrate court's
dismissal of an MRS complaint. MRS alleged a right to collect
on a debt from Yvonne Ugaki-Hicks, who did not respond to the
complaint. MRS filed an application for entry of default and
default judgment. The magistrate court denied the request.
MRS appealed to the district court which determined default
should have been entered but affirmed the magistrate
court's denial of entry of default judgment. MRS appealed
to this Court.
Factual and Procedural Background
filed a complaint against Ugaki-Hicks to recover $1, 416.63
alleged to be due for medical services provided by SEI
Anesthesia. MRS alleged that it was the assignee of the bill.
Ugaki-Hicks did not respond. MRS filed an application for
entry of default and for entry of default judgment. In
support of its application for default judgment, MRS filed
the affidavit of counsel which stated that an original
instrument evidencing MRS's claim was attached as Exhibit
A. However, Exhibit A was not included in the record filed
with the district court and is not present in the record
before this Court.
magistrate court denied MRS's request for entry of
default because MRS failed to provide sufficient proof of
assignment of the debt as required by Idaho Rule of Civil
Procedure 55(b)(2). MRS filed a motion for reconsideration,
asserting that Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1)
applied, not Rule 55(b)(2). Subsequently, MRS filed a second
affidavit of counsel in support of the application which
provided in pertinent part:
6. Pursuant to I.R.C.P. 55(b)(1) exhibit "A" is a
true and correct copy of an "original instrument"
evidencing Plaintiff's claim sent with Reconsideration on
December 12 [sic], 2015.
7. As the attorney for MRS I have personal knowledge of the
contract(s) between the providers and MRS assigning the
accounts in this case to MRS for collection. The applicable
contract(s) designate the original service provider as
"Assignor" and MRS as "Assignee." The
applicable contract(s) state, in relevant part:
"Assignor desires, from time to time during the term of
this agreement, to submit to Assignee for collection certain
claims, accounts or other evidences of indebtedness."
Accordingly, the account(s) at issue in this case were
assigned at the moment MRS received account information in
this case from the provider for collection.
8. Each of the accounts identified in Exhibit "A"
have been assigned to MRS because MRS has received the
account information from the provider ...