Bianco v. Rolle Newton & Co.

Ninth Circuit

Bianco v. Rolle Newton & Co.

366 F. App'x 821

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 24, 2010

Docket03-35431

StatusUnpublished

This text of 366 F. App'x 821 (Bianco v. Rolle Newton & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bianco v. Rolle Newton & Co., 366 F. App'x 821 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Rolle Newton & Company (“Rolle Newton”) appeals an order by the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Pana-Tek, Inc. (“Pana-Tek”) and denying Rolle Newton’s cross motion for summary judgment. We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004), and a finding-concerning joinder for abuse of discretion. Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 879 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal because Rolle Newton’s notice of appeal became effective after the district judge denied its motion for reconsideration. Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(4)(B)®. Pana-Tek’s subsequently filed motion for an order supplementing the order on reconsideration did not affect this court’s jurisdiction. See id.

Any rights Rolle Newton may have claimed were extinguished upon Pana-Tek’s purchase of the properties at the Marshal’s sale. A judgment against the initial owners of White Arrow Ranch and Devil’s Corral was perfected and recorded prior to the conveyances at issue. Rolle Newton’s claim to ownership results from a post-judgment chain of conveyances and is subject to the judgment lien. See First Nat’l Bank of Lewiston v. Hays, 7 Idaho 139, 61 P. 287, 288 (1900); see also Fulton v. Duro, 107 Idaho 240, 687 P.2d 1367, 1372-73 (App.1984), affd 108 Idaho 392, 700 P.2d 14 (1985).

Rolle Newton has no standing to challenge Pana-Tek’s water rights at White Arrow Ranch and Devil’s Corral. If, as Rolle Newton argues, the water rights were severed prior to recording of the judgment liens, then transfers to Rolle Newton did not include those rights. If the water rights were not severed, then *823 they were subject to the judgment lien and were conveyed to Pana-Tek at the Marshal’s sale. Rolle Newton is thus a third party to any dispute concerning the water rights and lacks standing. See, e.g., Serena v. Mock, 547 F.3d 1051, 1054 (9th Cir. 2008).

The district court acted within its discretion in finding that Pana-Tek joined all interested parties. Under Idaho law, a trust is not a separate legal entity, see Indian Springs, LLC v. Indian Springs Land Inv., LLC, 147 Idaho 737, 215 P.3d 457, 464 (2009), so Pana-Tek properly named the trustees in their official capacity, rather than individual trusts. Moreover, Meglon Domestic Non Grantor Trust does not retain an interest in the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

Rolle Newton & Company (“Rolle Newton”) appeals an order by the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Pana-Tek, Inc. (“Pana-Tek”) and denying Rolle Newton’s cross motion for summary judgment. We review an order granting summary judgment de novo, Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir.2004), and a finding-concerning joinder for abuse of discretion. Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861, 879 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal because Rolle Newton’s notice of appeal became effective after the district judge denied its motion for reconsideration. Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(4)(B)®. Pana-Tek’s subsequently filed motion for an order supplementing the order on reconsideration did not affect this court’s jurisdiction. See id.

Any rights Rolle Newton may have claimed were extinguished upon Pana-Tek’s purchase of the properties at the Marshal’s sale. A judgment against the initial owners of White Arrow Ranch and Devil’s Corral was perfected and recorded prior to the conveyances at issue. Rolle Newton’s claim to ownership results from a post-judgment chain of conveyances and is subject to the judgment lien. See First Nat’l Bank of Lewiston v. Hays, 7 Idaho 139, 61 P. 287, 288 (1900); see also Fulton v. Duro, 107 Idaho 240, 687 P.2d 1367, 1372-73 (App.1984), affd 108 Idaho 392, 700 P.2d 14 (1985).

Rolle Newton has no standing to challenge Pana-Tek’s water rights at White Arrow Ranch and Devil’s Corral. If, as Rolle Newton argues, the water rights were severed prior to recording of the judgment liens, then transfers to Rolle Newton did not include those rights. If the water rights were not severed, then *823 they were subject to the judgment lien and were conveyed to Pana-Tek at the Marshal’s sale. Rolle Newton is thus a third party to any dispute concerning the water rights and lacks standing. See, e.g., Serena v. Mock, 547 F.3d 1051, 1054 (9th Cir. 2008).

The district court acted within its discretion in finding that Pana-Tek joined all interested parties. Under Idaho law, a trust is not a separate legal entity, see Indian Springs, LLC v. Indian Springs Land Inv., LLC, 147 Idaho 737, 215 P.3d 457, 464 (2009), so Pana-Tek properly named the trustees in their official capacity, rather than individual trusts. Moreover, Meglon Domestic Non Grantor Trust does not retain an interest in the judgment.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 F. App'x 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bianco-v-rolle-newton-co-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack