Erkins

dissenting only as to Part 2 of the Memorandum:

The district court did not err in awarding Bianco attorneys’ fees against the Er-kins children. Rule 54(e)(1) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure provides “[i]n any civil action the court may award reasonable attorney fees ... when provided for by any statute or contract.” Idaho Code Section 12-120 provides that “[i]n any civil action to recover ... in any commercial transaction unless otherwise provided by law, the prevailing party shall be allowed a reasonable attorney’s fee to be set by the court, to be taxed and collected as cost.” Idaho Code § 12-120 (3) (emphasis added). Section 12-120(5) “provides a basis for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred during post-judgment attempts to collect on the judgment if the party was entitled to attorney fees and costs under the statute in the underlying proceeding that resulted in the judgment.” Action Collection Servs., Inc. v. Bigham, 146 Idaho 286 , 192 P.3d 1110, 1113 (Idaho Ct.App.2008) (citations omitted). Because (1) Bianco was entitled to the attorneys’ fees in bringing this action and in collecting on the judgment and (2) the children caused Bianco to incur the…

MEMORANDUM *

Robert A. and Bernardine Erkins (the Erkins) and them adult children appeal the district court’s (1) denial of their Motion to Set Aside the U.S. Marshal Sale for inadequate notice, (2) imposition of attorney fees and costs, and (3) contempt ruling against Robert Randolph Erkins. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

1. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to set aside a U.S. Marshal’s sale for abuse of discretion. Bank of America, NT & SA v. PENGWIN, 175 F.3d 1109, 1118 (9th Cir.1999) (citation omitted). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court.

Notice is constitutionally adequate if it is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168 , 122 S.Ct. 694 , 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002) (quotation and citation omitted). Prior to the hearing, execution proceedings and scheduled sale, the Erkins children filed an Expedited Motion for Rule 62(f) Stay requesting the court to stay the…