Opinion ID: 1203232
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: foreclosure procedure

Text: We commence our analysis by considering the bank's claims relating to the foreclosure proceeding. The foreclosure of a note and mortgage is an equitable proceeding. Steed v. Young, 115 Idaho 247, 766 P.2d 717 (1988); Federal Land Bank of Spokane v. Parsons, 116 Idaho 545, 777 P.2d 1218 (Ct.App. 1989); Rees v. Gorham, 30 Idaho 207, 212, 164 P. 88, 89 (1917) ([T]he rule is too well settled to require the citation of authorities, that a mortgage foreclosure is an equitable proceeding, in which neither party is entitled to a jury trial.). Thus the bank's claim of foreclosure of its loan documents and security, and the defenses raised by the borrowers, were part of the equitable foreclosure proceedings. Because the bank's complaint invoked the equitable jurisdiction of the district court, the jury's verdict and findings would be advisory only, and under I.R.C.P. 52(a) the judge has the responsibility of making the ultimate findings and decision in the case... . Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Co., 108 Idaho 602, 606, 701 P.2d 222, 226 (1985). I.R.C.P. 52(a) reads in part: In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of an appropriate judgment... . (Emphasis added.) Thus, with regard to the bank's foreclosure of its notes and security, and with regard to the borrowers' defenses to that foreclosure, the trial court was obligated to make its own findings of fact, conclusions of law and decision. I.R.C.P. 52(a); Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Co., supra . However, the trial court did not make any findings of fact. In his decision on the post-trial motions the trial court stated that, If this had been a court trial, I would have found for `the Bank' based upon my own findings of fact from my own observation of the evidence and my determination of credibility of witnesses. The trial court nevertheless entered a judgment based solely on the verdict of the jury, without making its own findings of fact and conclusions of law based on its own evaluation of the evidence. In failing to make its own findings, the trial court erred. I.R.C.P. 52(a) requires the trial court in a foreclosure proceeding, even with an advisory jury, to make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with his own observation of the evidence and ... determination of credibility of witnesses. Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Co., supra . For that reason alone, the judgment of the trial court would have to be vacated and the case remanded to the trial court to make the necessary findings of fact required by Rule 52(a). Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Co., supra ; Owen v. Boydstun, 102 Idaho 31, 624 P.2d 413 (1981). [6] However, in view of our disposition of the remaining issues in Parts III through X, in which we conclude that a new trial is necessary in this case, the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law should be based upon the evidence and proceedings at the new trial. BOYLE, J., and SCHROEDER and McKEE, JJ. Pro Tem., concur.