PHH MORTGAGE, Plaintiff-Third Party Defendant-Counterdefendant-Respondent,
CHARLES NICKERSON and DONNA NICKERSON, Defendants-Counterclaimants-Third Party Complainants-Appellants, and COLDWELL BANKER MORTGAGE, a d/b/a of PHH MORTGAGE, Third Party Defendant-Respondent, and JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA., Third Party Defendant.
from the District Court of the Second Judicial District of
the State of Idaho, Clearwater County. Honorable Gregory
FitzMaurice, District Judge.
orders of the district court are affirmed.
Charles and Donna Nickerson, Orofino, appellants pro se.
Aldridge Pite, LLP, Boise, for respondents. Lewis N. Stoddard
the second appeal following a judicial foreclosure. Charles
and Donna Nickerson initially appealed the district
court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of
PHH Mortgage and J.P. Mortgage Chase Bank in a judicial
foreclosure proceeding involving the Nickersons'
approximately fifty acres of land in Clearwater County, Idaho
(the "Property"). We affirmed the district
court's summary judgment grant in PHH Mortgage v.
Nickerson, 160 Idaho 388, 374 P.3d 551 (2016)
("Nickerson I") in April 2016. Following
this Court's decision, the district court issued an order
lifting the stay on its prior judgment, as well as an order
of sale and decree of foreclosure. The district court also
denied the Nickersons' post-appeal motions for sanctions,
to quash execution and judgment, and to vacate or amend the
order of sale and decree of foreclosure. The Nickersons now
challenge several issues previously decided in Nickerson
I as well as the district court's decisions on
motions and orders subsequent to that decision. We affirm.
Court in Nickerson I provided a detailed factual
record of the events surrounding this case:
In October of 2002, Charles and Donna Nickerson (the
Nickersons) purchased approximately 50 acres of land in
Clearwater County, Idaho. The Nickersons executed a
promissory note and a Deed of Trust in favor of Coldwell
Banker Mortgage[, a subsidiary of PHH mortgage, ] in the
principal sum of $285, 000. The district court determined
that the original loan to the Nickersons was made by Coldwell
Banker Mortgage and was originally serviced by Mortgage
Service Center. In December of 2002, the note was assigned to
Fannie Mae, and J.P. Morgan Chase acquired the note in
November of 2007, at which point Chase Home Financial began
servicing the loan. In February of 2010, Mortgage Service
Center resumed responsibility for loan servicing, and in June
of 2010, Chase assigned the note to PHH. As of December 1,
2013, the amount due on the note, including interest, was
On January 10, 2011, PHH filed a complaint against the
Nickersons claiming that the Nickersons had defaulted on
their loan and seeking to foreclose. On August 12, 2011, the
Nickersons answered the complaint. On February 1, 2012, the
Nickersons filed an amended answer, counterclaim, and
third-party complaint against Chase. The Nickersons'
answer, counterclaim, and third party complaint alleged,
among other things: breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, breach of note, breach of 12 U.S.C. §
2605, breach of the federal fair debt collection practices
act, breach of the federal fair credit reporting act. In
addition to these claims, the Nickersons also sought an award
of punitive damages. On October 16, 2012, PHH and Chase each
filed motions for summary judgment.
On November 16, 2012, the district court granted in part and
denied in part PHH's motion for summary judgment and
granted Chase's motion for summary judgment. In granting
Chase's motion for summary judgment, the district court
concluded, "Chase's motion for summary judgment
should be granted as to all of the Nickersons' third
party claims for failure to present any evidence to support
the elements of those third party claims, and/or the claims
are not proper because the cited statutes do not apply to the
facts of this case."
In its partial denial of PHH's motion for summary
judgment, the district court stated: "PHH's motion
for summary judgment should be granted as to all of the
Nickersons' counterclaims for failure to present any
evidence to support the elements of those counterclaims,
and/or the counterclaims are not proper because the cited
statutes do not apply to the facts of this case. Summary
judgment should also be granted as to the Nickersons'
affirmative defense...." However, the district court
determined there was a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the Nickersons were in default in 2010 when PHH
acquired its interest in the Nickersons' loan.
On December 5, 2012, the Nickersons filed a motion to
reconsider. The motion stated that supporting documentation
would soon be filed; however, on February 5, 2013, the
district court denied the motion because the Nickersons had
not presented a supporting memorandum following the motion.
On February 25, 2013, the Nickersons' attorney moved to
withdraw. On May 15, 2013, the district court granted the
withdrawal motion, and on August 19, 2013, the Nickersons
filed a notice of appearance pro se.
On November 12, 2013, PHH filed a second motion for summary
judgment, again contending that the Nickersons were in
default and that they had not presented evidence to the
contrary. On December 17, 2013, the Nickersons filed their
own motion for summary judgment, supported by the affidavit
of Charles Nickerson. PHH moved to strike the affidavit, and
the district court granted the motion in part. The district
court set the hearing on the cross-motions for summary
judgment for February 11, 2014. On February 5, 2014, the
Nickersons filed an unsuccessful motion to continue the
On April 4, 2014, the district court issued its order and
final judgment granting PHH's motion for summary judgment
and denying the Nickersons' motion for summary judgment.
The district court concluded that the Nickersons had not
presented evidence to support their ...