Court Opinion

ID: 9557921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:00:14.114644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:43.330821
License: Public Domain

Justice Pro Tem JOHNSON,
DISSENTING.
I respectfully dissent.
The Court’s opinion correctly states that the standard of review to be applied is abuse *464of discretion as outlined in Clear Springs Trout Co. v. Anthony, 123 Idaho 141, 845 P.2d 559 (1992). The opinion, however, does not apply this standard concerning excusable neglect, but instead makes a ruling as a matter of law.
In declining to set aside the default judgment, the trial court made the following findings of fact:
1. Heber Jacobsen received a copy of the Complaint and indicated that he understood it.
2. Heber Jacobsen was represented by counsel and had access to his attorney.
3. Heber Jacobsen took a cavalier attitude and did not resist the judgment being taken.
In my view, there is substantial and competent evidence to support these findings and, therefore, they are not clearly erroneous.
The trial court applied to these facts the appropriate criterion of excusable neglect under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(1), and the trial court’s decision follows logically from the application of this criterion to the facts found.
Therefore, I conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Chief Justice TROUT, CONCURS.