Court Opinion

ID: 9789910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:43:50.073195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.164255
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
Compton v. Compton, 101 Idaho 328, 334, 612 P.2d 1175, 1181, (1980), as the Court’s opinion points out, held that “There is no expressed time limit, however, with respect to the independent action to relieve a party from judgment.” This holding cleared up the massive ambiguity of I.R.C.P. 60 which in a single sentence encompassed independent actions and at the same time motions to vacate judgments for lack of personal service, and proceedings to set aside judgments for fraud upon the court. A casual reader unacquainted with the provisions of former code provision I.C. § 5-905, and Idaho case law, might well conclude from I.R. C.P. 60(b) that the one year limitation applies to independent actions and motions to set aside judgments for fraud upon the court. It does not, and it should be rewritten to cover in independent sentences the three categories which Justice McFadden carefully enumerated beginning with the last sentence on p. 333 of 101 Idaho, and on p. 1180 of 612 P.2d. In Keane v. Allen, 69 Idaho 53, 202 P.2d 411 (1949), the Court held that “A motion to vacate a judgment upon the ground of extrinsic fraud is in the nature of a legal remedy, but equitable in character, and is a further proceeding in the original action.” Id. at 60, 202 P.2d at 415. Looking to Sec. 5-905, I.C.A. (later I.C. § 5-905 and later repealed) and in particular the one year provisions where summons was not personally served, the Keane Court also held:
“As hereinbefore pointed out, Sec. 5-905 is not controlling or exclusive where fraud is involved. Since one year is the maximum statutory time for vacation of a judgment, a reasonable maximum time for vacation of any judgment, the invalidity of which does not appear from the face of the judgment-roll, should not be in excess of one year from the entry of judgment. See Bancroft, Code Practice & Remedies, Vol. 3, p. 2460.
“Regardless of the maximum time, the motion must be nevertheless made within a reasonable time after discovery of the fraud. Clark v. Southern Can Co., 116 Md. 85, 81 A. 271, 36 L.R.A., N.S., 980.
“ ‘Reasonable time’ has been defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., p. 1730, (citing many eases) as such length of time as may fairly, properly, and reasonably be allowed or required, having regard to the nature of the act or duty, or of the subject matter, and to the attending circumstances.”
69 Idaho at 63, 202 P.2d at 417 (emphasis added).
It is to be noted that in Keane v. Allen the application for relief for extrinsic fraud was made within one year.
Ten years later the court had before it a case where more than one year had elapsed from the time of entry of the judgments there involved and the applications for relief therefrom. On the basis of the one-year maximum limitation of Keane v. Allen, *486the district court denied relief. Gregory v. Hancock, 81 Idaho 221, 226, 340 P.2d 108, 111 (1950). An appeal followed.
This Court disavowed the statement in Keane setting a maximum time limitation of one year, id. at 228, 340 P.2d 108, and held, almost as pointed out in Compton, that:
“Where extrinsic fraud has been perpetrated in obtaining a judgment the defendant is not confined to his statutory remedy to set the judgment aside by reason of his mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. The equity power of the district court to vacate a judgment obtained by means of extrinsic fraud is inherent, not statutory, and is not subject to the time limitations imposed by the statute, I.C. § 5-905, and may be exercised after the lapse of the statutory time, in the discretion of the court.... Such an attack upon a voidable judgment is direct, and may be made either by motion or independent action. In re Esteem’s Estate, 16 Cal.2d 563, 107 P.2d 36.
. “Any motion to set aside a judgment on the ground of extrinsic fraud must be made within a reasonable time.”
81 Idaho at 227,340 P.2d at 111 (emphasis added).
Gregory was not, as the Compton opinion intimates, an independent action, but rather motions or petitions filed in the original action. The distinction, however, is clearly of no moment. Whether by motion, as in Gregory, or by independent action, as in Compton, where the grounds of relief are laid on allegations of extrinsic fraud, or upon fraud upon the court, or a combination of both, there is no time limitation other than a reasonable time — which in turn hinges on considerations of due regard for the nature of the act or duty, the subject matter, and attending circumstances. 81 Idaho at 227, 340 P.2d at 112.
Regarding Compton’s discussion of fraud upon the court, beginning at p. 334 of 101 Idaho, 612 P.2d 1175, it is my understanding that fraud upon the court generally is extrinsic fraud, that is, where the court or court system is used as an instrumentality of fraud, which almost has to be unwittingly — for which reason it is extrinsic. My recollection of the clerk’s file in Gregory v. Hancock is that the fraud alleged was exactly that type — extrinsic fraud practiced on one party the perpetration of which also made the court an instrument of fraud. See Southern Idaho Production Credit Association v. Ruiz, 105 Idaho 140, 666 P.2d 1151 (1983) (Bistline, J., specially concurring). As to our remarks on p. 335 of 101 Idaho under headnote 11, 612 P.2d 1175, fraud in the obtaining of judgment is per se rare and exceptional, for which reason it rises to the level of extreme fraud. Fraud has no place in the judicial proceedings, and, a fortiori, is extreme fraud when utilized to subvert or interfere with the integrity of a court. Such issues are hardly ever appropriate for summary proceedings. The matter at stake is not just the dispute between the parties, but the vindication of the judicial system. One party may not have the necessary evidence at hand to refute the other’s affidavit — but, nevertheless at trial the court is at liberty to believe or not believe. It should also be kept in mind that, contrary to the views of one of the dissents, attorneys often do rely on the statements of other attorneys in matters of properly ascertained values, and in turn advise their own clients. Most attorneys will prefer to believe that the time has not yet arrived when exchanges of information between attorneys must be subscribed and sworn to. Here, in my view, it was neither unusual nor improper for one attorney to pass on to his adversary information which was believed to be reliable and honest. Behind it all, and under challenge here, is the veracity of the underlying informant, a client whose attorney obviously believed in him.