Opinion ID: 2595572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the andersens failed to challenge on appeal the district court's alternative grounds for granting summary judgment and therefore the district court's order granting summary judgment must be affirmed.

Text: The Andersens appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment arguing they as individuals do have standing to pursue the action. The Andersens do not, however, list as an issue on appeal nor provide argument regarding the district court's alternative grounds for granting summary judgment. This Court has consistently followed the rule that it will not review the actions of a trial court, unless the action has been listed as an issue on appeal, especially where no authorities are cited and no argument is contained in the appellate briefs. Sun Valley Shopping Center, Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 93, 803 P.2d 993, 999 (1991). It is the duty of the appellant to list the issues on appeal for this Court to review. Everhart v. Washington County Road and Bridge Dept., 130 Idaho 273, 274, 939 P.2d 849, 850 (1997). When a decision is based upon alternative grounds, the fact that one of the grounds may be in error is of no consequence and may be disregarded if the judgment can be sustained upon one of the other grounds. MacLeod v. Reed, 126 Idaho 669, 671, 889 P.2d 103, 105 (Ct.App.1995). Because the Andersens have failed to challenge on appeal the district court's alternative grounds for granting summary judgment against them, the dismissal of their case must be affirmed. See Pitzer v. Swenson, 128 Idaho 423, 425, 913 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Ct.App.1996). The Andersens cannot prevail under any circumstances, for if they obtain a reversal on the issue appealed  standing  the judgment based on the alternative grounds would be affirmed because those issues were not properly appealed. We affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment.