Court Opinion

ID: 9844601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:05:21.067886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:38.774294
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, J.,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in all of the Court’s opinion except Part II (The District Court Properly Granted Summary Judgment in the Counterclaim in Favor of the Bank Based on the Doctrine of Res Judicata).
The Court apparently considers the question of privity to be a question of federal law. I do not. In my view, privity is a question of Idaho law. The Court extensively reviewed the subject of privity in Foster v. City of St. Anthony, 122 Idaho 883, 888-90, 841 P.2d 413, 418-20 (1992). Among the eases reviewed in Foster, Kite v. Eckley, 48 Idaho 454, 282 P. 868 (1929) seems closest to the facts here. In Kite, the Court held that the beneficiaries of a trust are not in privity with the trustee. The Court said: “Privity im*74plies a derivation of title.” Id. at 460, 282 P. at 870. This illuminates for me that an agency or fiduciary relationship is not sufficient to establish privity under the concept of res judicata (claim preclusion) as this Court has interpreted privity.
TROUT, J., concurs in opinion except joins in JOHNSON, J.’s dissent as to Part II.