Opinion ID: 2630728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The district court's review

Text: Pursuant to the version of I.R.C.P. 83 governing this case, [2] on appeal from a magistrate court's decision, the district court had the option of (1) conducting an appellate review of the magistrate court's decision just as the appellate courts would conduct a review of a district court; or (2) wiping the slate clean by ordering a trial de novo and beginning the case anew. Winn v. Winn, 101 Idaho 270, 272, 611 P.2d 1055, 1057 (1980); see I.R.C.P. 83(b), (u); see also Gilbert v. Moore, 108 Idaho 165, 697 P.2d 1179 (1985). Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 83(u)(2) controls the scope of review and states, Upon an appeal from the magistrate[']s division of the district court involving a trial de novo, the district court shall render a decision in the action as a trial court as though the matter was initially brought in the district court. Trial de novo, this Court has explained, means a trying of the matter anewthe same as if it had never been heard before. Gilbert, 108 Idaho at 168, 697 P.2d at 1182. As the term de novo implies, a district court is not allowed to combine a review on the record with a partial trial de novo except in certain limited circumstances. For example, a district court, having chosen to review the magistrate court's decision as an appellate court, is not thereby precluded from taking additional evidence on separate, distinct issues that were not addressed by the magistrate court. See Roe Family Services v. Doe, 139 Idaho 930, 88 P.3d 749 (2004) (concluding district court, acting as an appellate court, lost authority over the issue of visitation when it remanded the case to the magistrate court because visitation is not a separate issue  (emphasis added)); Koester v. Koester, 99 Idaho 654, 586 P.2d 1370 (1978) (stating it's appropriate to consider new evidence in child custody action that father moved out of state after appeal was filed); Dillard v. State, 101 Idaho 917, 623 P.2d 1294 (1981) (allowing new evidence that rehabilitation centers were no longer available where magistrate court based its decision on the availability of such centers). In sum, under the version of Rule 83 governing this case, the district court could proceed with the appeal from the magistrate court's decision in one of two ways: (1) the district court could act as an appellate court and consider the record from the magistrate court, yet hear new evidence on matters not addressed below because they occurred after the appeal was filed; or (2) the district court could choose to wipe the slate clean and conduct a full trial de novo. In this case, the district court did neither. There was no authority for the district court to decide that the evidence as to the cause of Adam's misbehavior was insufficient and allow Crawford a new opportunity to present evidence on an issue that had already been tried and decided. Apparently the district court intended to rely on the record before the magistrate court as to any other evidence presented; however, it is difficult to see the district court gave any meaningful consideration to that evidence. It appears the only evidence it considered was the new evidence presented in the limited trial de novo and, in fact, the district court refused to allow Leavitt to present evidence on any matters other than the one limited issue designated by the district court. As there was not a valid basis for the manner in which the district court attempted to conduct this case on appeal, it will be treated as though the district court was sitting in its appellate capacity and this Court will review the magistrate court's decision directly.