Opinion ID: 1163276
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: A. The Idaho Supreme Court Has Jurisdiction To Hear This Case. Under Idaho Appellate Rule 11(a)(3), this Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals of [j]udgments made pursuant to a partial judgment certified by the trial court to be final as provided by Rule 54(b), I.R.C.P. I.R.C.P. 54(b) provides that [w]hen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, ... the court may direct the entry of a final judgment upon one or more but less than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of the judgment. As previously noted, the magistrate court entered the Rule 54(b) certification. Therefore, pursuant to I.A.R. 11(a)(3), this Court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal. B. Naomi And Terry Ratliff Stipulated To A Modification Of the Custody Decree At The February 25, 1994 Hearing. Naomi raises numerous challenges to the magistrate court's order modifying the custody decree. Her arguments focus upon whether or not there was sufficient and competent evidence to support the magistrate court's decision. However, these arguments ignore the fact that the magistrate court, at the time of the hearing and later after reviewing the transcript in response to Naomi's motion for reconsideration, believed that the parties had stipulated to a change in custody. We agree with the magistrate court's interpretation of the transcript as indicating that the parties stipulated to a change in custody. A review of the hearing transcript shows that Naomi's attorney represented to the magistrate court that Dr. Beaver had facilitated a negotiated settlement. He then expressed a desire for Dr. Beaver to take the stand and detail his recommendations which he thought the parties [were], in essence, agreed to. He did express one reservation concerning Terry taking primary custody of the children at the conclusion of the summer and asked that that determination be made in August. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that the magistrate court would follow Dr. Beaver's recommendations as it had done earlier and expressed Naomi's desire for the Court to hear Dr. Beaver and make an appropriate rulingnot an appropriate ruling, but the resolution based on his recommendations and testimony. Moreover, during Naomi's cross-examination of Dr. Beaver, he was not questioned as to why a change in custody would be in the children's best interests. Rather, the questioning concerned whether it would not be a better idea to wait until August to inform the children that custody was going to be switched. In response, Dr. Beaver indicated that he recommended the children be immediately informed of the pending custody change. He believed that informing the children immediately would alleviate any distress the children might feel by not knowing where they would be living for the following school year and would aid in their transition from living with Naomi to living with Terry. In accordance with Naomi's desire as expressed by her attorney at the hearing, the magistrate court entered an order based on Dr. Beaver's recommendations and testimony. The order followed each one of his recommendations. The order required the children to be returned to Naomi's care for the remainder of the school year, modified the summer visitation schedule to two week blocks, and reversed the custody arrangement to give Terry primary custody of the children during the following school year. Thus, the order reflected exactly what the parties without objection represented that they had agreed to, i.e. a resolution based on the recommendations and testimony of Dr. Beaver. As a result of this stipulation, Naomi has no basis to characterize the hearing as a contested matter and ignore the stipulation that was represented before the magistrate court. Parties who enter into stipulations are bound thereby. Workman Family Partnership v. City of Twin Falls, 104 Idaho 32, 35, 655 P.2d 926, 929 (1982). Because we conclude that the parties stipulated to a change in custody, we do not consider Naomi's other arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the order. See, e.g., Perry v. Schaumann, 110 Idaho 596, 598, 716 P.2d 1368, 1370 (Ct. App.1986) (stating that stipulations are a form of judicial admission which obviate the necessity for proof of facts within the ambit of the stipulation).