Opinion ID: 874016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Considering the Joint Affidavit of Cornelius and Patricia Mercea and the Affidavit of the Merceas' Counsel?

Text: On December 11, 2009, the Merceas filed their joint affidavit in support of their motion for summary judgment. On the same date, they also filed the affidavit of their counsel in support of the motion. On appeal, James argues that [m]any of the conclusionary statement [sic] by the Merceas in their joint affidavit seemingly do not pass evidentiary muster, including four statements quoted in James's opening brief. James also argues that the Merceas' counsel was not a competent witness because Rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct seemingly prohibits the very testimony offered by Mr. Anson in his affidavit. Rule 56(e) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure provides insofar as is relevant, Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. However, James did not object to either of these affidavits in the district court. The rule with respect to the admissibility of affidavits on a motion for summary judgment when there is no objection is as follows: A trial court has the discretion to decide whether an affidavit offered in support of or opposition to a motion for summary judgment is admissible under Rule 56(e), even if that issue is not raised by one of the parties. However, we have not required the trial court to rule on the admissibility of the affidavit when there is no objection to it. If there is no timely objection, the trial court can grant summary judgment based upon an affidavit that does not comply with Rule 56(e). Esser Elec. v. Lost River Ballistics Techs., Inc., 145 Idaho 912, 917, 188 P.3d 854, 859 (2008) (citation omitted). Because James did not object to the admissibility of either affidavit, the district court did not err in considering them in connection with the Merceas' motion for summary judgment.