PAUL A. WOODIE and KIMBERLY A. WOODIE a/k/a KYMBERLY A. WOODIE a/k/a KYM WOODIE, husband and wife, Appellants (Defendants),
JANET WHITESELL, Appellee (Plaintiff). PAUL A. WOODIE and KIMBERLY A. WOODIE a/k/a KYMBERLY A. WOODIE a/k/a KYM WOODIE, husband and wife, Appellants (Defendants),
JANET WHITESELL, Appellee (Plaintiff).
from the District Court of Teton County The Honorable Timothy
C. Day, Judge
Representing Appellants: William R. Fix and Jessica Simons of
Fix Law Office, Jackson, Wyoming; Larissa A. McCalla, Wyarno,
Wyoming. Argument by Ms. McCalla.
Representing Appellee: John R. Goodell of Racine Olson, PLLP,
DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
Janet Whitesell sued Paul and Kimberly Woodie (Woodies) in
the district court in Teton County, Wyoming, seeking to
collect on a promissory note (Note). The Woodies executed the
Note in Idaho and delivered it to Ms. Whitesell in payment
for real estate located in Idaho. The Note was originally
secured by a deed of trust in the property. At the time of
the transaction, neither party had any connection with
Wyoming. The Woodies filed several motions to dismiss the
Wyoming lawsuit, asserting the Wyoming district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction and the lawsuit was barred by the
statute of limitations. The district court denied the
Woodies' motions to dismiss and granted summary judgment
in favor of Ms. Whitesell. The Woodies challenge both rulings
on appeal. We affirm.
In May 2011, Ms. Whitesell sold her home in Idaho to the
Woodies for $225, 000. The Woodies paid $50, 000 with money
they borrowed from Snake River Funding (Snake River) and
delivered a $175, 000 promissory note to Ms. Whitesell for
the balance. The Note called for the Woodies to make 47
monthly installments beginning July 1, 2011, and to make a
balloon payment on July 1, 2015. In return, Ms. Whitesell
delivered a warranty deed to the Woodies, which they
recorded. The Woodies gave Snake River a first deed of trust
in the subject property as security for the debt associated
with the $50, 000 down payment and gave Ms. Whitesell a
second deed of trust in the same property to secure the $175,
The Woodies made five (5) monthly payments to Ms. Whitesell.
They stopped making payments on the Note in December 2011,
asserting Ms. Whitesell failed to timely vacate the property.
In September 2012, Ms. Whitesell recorded a Notice of Default
in the property records in Idaho. The next month, Snake
River, as senior lienholder, also recorded a Notice of
Default and began foreclosure proceedings. Snake River
foreclosed on the property; neither Ms. Whitesell nor the
Woodies redeemed the property.
In July 2017, Ms. Whitesell filed this lawsuit in Teton
County, seeking judgment against both Mr. and Mrs. Woodie on
the Note. A Teton County deputy sheriff served Mr. Woodie
with the complaint and a summons in Teton County, Wyoming.
Shortly thereafter, without filing any challenge to the
Wyoming court's personal jurisdiction over either
defendant, Wyoming counsel entered an appearance on behalf of
both Mr. and Mrs. Woodie. The Woodies later filed several
motions to dismiss arguing, among other things, Ms.
Whitesell's complaint was barred by the applicable Idaho
statute of limitations and the district court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over her complaint. The district court
denied the motions to dismiss.
Ms. Whitesell filed a motion for summary judgment with an
affidavit stating the Woodies defaulted on the Note and
establishing the balance due. The district court found there
were no genuine issues of material fact and granted summary
judgment in her favor.
The issues presented by the Woodies are:
1. Did the district court have subject matter and personal
2. Did the district court correctly apply the correct Idaho
statute of limitations?
3. Did the district court fail to properly apply the Idaho
Trust Deeds Act?
4. Did the district court err in awarding interest,
attorney's fees and costs to Ms. Whitesell?
Did the district court have subject matter and personal
In their issue statement, the Woodies claim the district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; however, a close
reading of their argument shows they challenge ...