Opinion ID: 880196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bach Waived the Majority of His Claims on Appeal

Text: In his opening brief, Bach has provided this Court with a wide variety of issues that are “so lacking in coherence, citations to the record, citations of applicable authority, or comprehensible argument” that they are difficult, if not impossible, to understand. Bagley, 148 Idaho at 791, 229 P.3d at 1153. In general, Bach’s opening brief, at best, reads like a journal of his stream of consciousness or perhaps unconsciousness. He generally does not provide relevant Idaho case law supporting the majority of his claims. Instead, Bach cites favorable secondary sources and cases from other states with questionable relevance. Furthermore, this Court does not approve of Bach’s practice of utilizing blanket statements that incorporate all arguments and authority cited for each issue to every other issue. See id. 5 This Court will not consider an issue unless it is “supported by argument and authority in the opening brief.” Id. at 790, 229 P.3d at 1152 (quoting Jorgensen v. Coppedge, 145 Idaho 524, 528, 181 P.3d 450, 454 (2008)). “[G]eneral attack[s] on the findings and conclusions of the district court, without specific reference to evidentiary or legal errors,” will also not be considered. Id. This Court declines to search the record on appeal for error. Id. All of Bach’s arguments on appeal focus on his mistaken belief that all of Dawson’s and McLean’s claims are moot and that Bach is entitled to Dawson’s and McLean’s interests in the Peacock Parcel because the district court judge apparently mistakenly signed the Judgment, which was filed on September 11, 2007, most likely without reading it. Thus, Bach is essentially seeking a windfall to Dawson’s and McLean’s undivided interests in the Peacock Parcel. As the district court noted, Dawson’s and McLean’s interests in the Peacock Parcel are beyond the relief sought in the Complaint, and awarding those interests to Bach would be contrary to the Default Judgment entered in Teton County Case No. CV–02–208. Therefore, the majority of Bach’s claims on appeal will not be considered by this Court because Bach has failed to support them with relevant argument and authority. Furthermore, Bach presents many new issues on appeal that lack argument or authority. Among the multitude of Bach’s new claims on appeal include those based on the Idaho Racketeering Act, the invited error doctrine, the waiver doctrine, acquiescence, res judicata, judicial estoppel, collateral estoppel, quasi-estoppel, and claim preclusion. This Court will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Johannsen v. Utterbeck, 146 Idaho 423, 429, 196 P.3d 341, 347 (2008). As a result, these new arguments are deemed waived. Finally, the record that Bach has provided to this Court is severely inadequate. The only portions of the record that are relevant to this appeal are primarily found in the first thirty-one pages. Many of the orders, motions and judgments that Bach cites in his opening brief are not included in the record. Furthermore, the record is wholly devoid of sufficient facts to frame many of the legal arguments that Bach makes in his opening brief. For the most part, there are only a few facts in the record that describe the series of events giving rise to this appeal. Thus, many of the legal arguments that Bach makes in his opening brief are unsupported by the record. Bach contends that the district court erred when it awarded Dawson and McLean Rule 11 sanctions, but Bach failed to attach the order granting sanctions or any other relevant document in the record. Bach further asserts that Dawson and McLean violated the Idaho Racketeering Act, but he failed to attach the order relating to that statute in the record, as well. Bach also did 6 not include the district court’s Order denying Bach’s November 15, 2010, motions in the record on appeal. Instead, he placed the Order as an appendix in his opening brief. As a result, this Court cannot consider that issue on appeal. See Goodman Oil Co. v. Scotty’s Duro-Bilt Generator, Inc., 147 Idaho 56, 59, 205 P.3d 1192, 1195 (2009). Therefore, these issues are waived because this Court is “bound by the record and cannot consider matters or materials not part of or contained therein.” State ex rel. Ohman v. Ivan H. Talbot Family Trust, 120 Idaho 825, 827, 820 P.2d 695, 697 (1991). B. Dawson Had Standing to File his Motion for Relief from Judgment Bach contends that because the district court dismissed McLean and Dawson’s Complaint with prejudice for lack of prosecution and entered the Judgment on September 11, 2007, which quieted title to an undivided three-fourth interest in the Peacock Parcel to Bach, Dawson lacked standing to file the Motion for Relief from Judgment. 2 Bach also asserts that Dawson lacks standing because he missed the fourteen day deadline to file a motion for reconsideration. In this vein, Bach seems to argue that filing a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to filing a motion for relief from judgment. In order to satisfy the requirement of standing, the petitioner must allege or demonstrate a distinct palpable injury in fact, that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and that there is a substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claimed injury. Martin v. Camas Cnty. ex rel. Bd. of Comm’rs, 150 Idaho 508, 513, 248 P.3d 1243, 1248 (2011); Schneider v. Howe, 142 Idaho 767, 772, 133 P.3d 1232, 1237 (2006). “But even if a showing can be made of an injury in fact, standing may be denied when the asserted harm is a generalized grievance shared by all or a large class of citizens.” Young v. City of Ketchum, 137 Idaho 102, 104–05, 44 P.3d 1157, 1159–60 (2002). An interest as a concerned citizen in seeing that the government abides by the law does not confer standing. Id. Bach is essentially inviting this Court to reconsider Dawson v. Cheyovich Family Trust, which resolved this issue. Bach’s argument that filing a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to filing a motion for relief from judgment is incorrect. Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a)(2)(B) do not contain any language to that effect. Dawson showed a distinct palpable injury in fact that is fairly traceable to Bach’s 2 Bach contends that Dawson and McLean lacked standing to file the Motion for Relief from Judgment. McLean was deceased when the motion was filed. Because Bach did not provide the Motion for Relief from Judgment in the record on appeal, it is unclear who filed that motion. 7 conduct, which can be redressed. Therefore, Dawson had standing to file his Motion for Relief from Judgment. C. The District Court Had Jurisdiction to Grant the Motion for Relief from Judgment and to Enter the Second Amended Judgment Bach contends that the district court lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction to grant the Motion for Relief from Judgment and to enter the Second Amended Judgment because Dawson’s and McLean’s claims are moot because the Judgment, which was filed on September 11, 2007, is a “final” judgment that cannot be altered. “Generally issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered.” State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223, 227, 91 P.3d 1127, 1131 (2004). However, the issues of standing and mootness can be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal. See Hawkins v. Bonneville Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 151 Idaho 228, 231, 254 P.3d 1224, 1227 (2011); In re Doe I, 145 Idaho 337, 340, 179 P.3d 300, 303 (2008). The district court had jurisdiction to hear the Motion for Relief from Judgment and to enter the Second Amended Judgment. Bach’s arguments are unconvincing and not supported by authority. Limiting the scope of an inconsistent judgment that grants relief beyond what was sought in a complaint is the type of error that motions under I.R.C.P. 60(b) were intended to address. See I.R.C.P. 60(b) (stating that upon a motion, the courts may relieve a party from a final judgment for error based on, among other things, mistake, excusable neglect, or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment). Bach’s arguments on jurisdiction are incorrect and frivolous. D. Bach Is Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees on Appeal Bach requests attorney’s fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121. Because Bach is not the prevailing party on appeal and because Bach is representing himself, this Court denies his request. See Bowles v. Pro Indiviso, Inc., 132 Idaho 371, 377, 973 P.2d 142, 148 (1999). E. Dawson Is Entitled to Attorney’s Fees on Appeal Dawson contends that he is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121 and I.A.R. 11.1 because Bach pursued his appeal frivolously, as harassment, and in order to increase the cost of litigation. Idaho Code section 12-121 provides in relevant part: In any civil action, the judge may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party or parties, provided that this section shall not alter, repeal or amend any statute which otherwise provides for the award of attorney’s fees. 8 Attorney’s fees are awarded under this statute only when “the action was brought or pursued frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation.” Baker v. Sullivan, 132 Idaho 746, 751, 979 P.2d 619, 624 (1999). Because all of Bach’s claims are waived, frivolous or unsupported by argument or authority, Dawson is entitled to attorney’s fees. Considering this Court’s prior decision in Dawson v. Cheyovich Family Trust and the district court’s Second Amended Judgment, Bach’s claims are not well grounded in fact or law. Based on the nature of Bach’s claims and his general inability to provide coherent argument or authority, this suit can only be interpreted as a means to increase the costs of litigation and to harass. Because Dawson is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to I.C. § 12-121, this Court will not address the issue of whether Bach should be sanctioned.