Park City, UT
Real estate Lawyer at Park City, UT
Practice Areas: Real Estate, Personal Injury ... +3 more
OUTCOME: Motion to Intervene Denied
In case seeking punitive damages for wrongful use of civil proceedings, client's wife sought to intervene to object to production of tax returns.
OUTCOME: Affirmed
After a jury found appellant developer liable to appellee partner, the Third District, Silver Summit Department (Utah), denied the developer's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), n ... ew trial, and remittitur. The developer appealed, and the partner moved to dismiss the appeal. The partner said it bought the developer's "claims" when executing on the judgment, making the appeal moot. The supreme court held the appeal was not moot because "claim" did not include a right to appeal. Denial of the developer's summary judgment motion was not reviewed because legal questions presented involved fact disputes. A contractual ambiguity finding was unreviewable because the developer did not (1) present competing interpretations or identify the part found ambiguous, or (2) show prejudice. The developer showed no error in denying its Utah R. Civ. P. 50(b) JNOV motion because it did not show the verdict had no evidentiary basis. It did not show error in denying its new trial motion under Utah R. Civ. P. 59(a)(5) - (7) because (1) testimony supported the verdict, and (2) the jury sought to ensure its award was not multiplied. It was not an abuse of discretion to let the partner amend its complaint, under Utah R. Civ. P. 15(a), because (1) it gave notice two months before trial of an intent to move to amend, and (2) timeliness, the motion's justification, and possible prejudice were considered. It was not error to deny remittitur because a new trial was properly denied.
OUTCOME: Affirmed
After a jury found appellant developer liable to appellee partner, the Third District, Silver Summit Department (Utah), denied the developer's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), n ... ew trial, and remittitur. The developer appealed, and the partner moved to dismiss the appeal. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
OUTCOME: Motion Granted
In lawsuit for wrongful civil proceedings, defendants sought extension of time for summary judgment briefing.
OUTCOME: Affirmed
The partnership argued that, as a party to the Specially Planned Area (SPA) Agreement, it was entitled to compel arbitration of the SPA claims between appellees. The supreme court found that the SPA di ... sputes between appellees were not within the scope of the arbitration provision and even if they were, the partnership would not have a right to compel arbitration of claims between two other parties. Because the default mechanism could only be exercised by the county, the county would necessarily be a party to every continuing dispute. The partnership was incorrect when it asserted that the arbitration provision applied to all disputes between any parties to the SPA agreement. Although the claims involved liability for the default declared by the county, they were distinct from the parties' disputes with the county. Thus, these SPA claims did not fall within the scope of the arbitration provision. The partnership's due process rights were not violated where the arbitration issue had been authoritatively decided by the supreme court's prior opinion.
OUTCOME: Affirmed
Based on letters, a rational trier of fact could not have found that a company adequately assured buyers that it would resolve vibration and noise issues, and as the company repudiated the contract by ... failing to provide adequate assurances of its performance, the buyers were properly granted summary judgment under Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c).
OUTCOME: Motion Granted
In action to recover damages for fraud and breach of contract, plaintiffs moved for entry of judgment against defendants.
OUTCOME: Motion Granted
In case to recover damages for fraud and breach of contract in investment scheme operated by defendant, plaintiffs sought summary judgment in their favor and against defendants.
OUTCOME: Affirmed
In an action against defendant business partner for breach of contract, forgery, and conversion, plaintiff partner filed a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. The Third District Court, Summit Cou ... nty (Utah) denied the motion to enforce, and the partner filed an interlocutory appeal. The partner and the business partner entered into a partnership agreement and acquired a condominium unit with the intention of renting it to skiers for profit. Under the agreement, costs and profits were to be shared equally. The business partner later began occasionally to occupy the condominium for his personal use, and a dispute arose over how much he should pay to the partnership for his personal use of the condominium. The business partner sent to the partner a letter containing a settlement proposal, and the partner responded in a letter purporting to accept certain provisions of the settlement proposal but also making counterproposals. The partner claimed that the letters exchanged between the parties constituted an enforceable settlement agreement. The court held that the partner was not entitled to enforcement of the purported settlement agreement because there was no meeting of the minds and there was no agreement between the parties on the essential terms of the contract.
OUTCOME: Reversed but Attorneys Fees Denied
Defendants, partnership and two partners, challenged the award of injunctive relief entered by the Third District, Summit County (Utah) to plaintiff homeowners. The homeowners claimed that defendants v ... iolated various subdivision covenants, conditions, and restrictions when they constructed a home and other improvements adjacent to the homeowners' property. The homeowners alleged that defendants violated various restrictive covenants in constructing their home and other improvements on an adjacent lot. The homeowners sought damages and injunctive relief. The case was tried to a jury, which determined that defendants had not violated the covenants and thus did not reach the issue of the appropriate relief. The homeowners' post-trial memorandum argued for the first time that because the case involved only equitable issues, the jury served only in an advisory capacity. As requested by the homeowners, the trial court issued an injunction notwithstanding the jury verdict. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in designating the jury verdict as advisory only and by entering judgment on a ruling contrary to the verdict. The court held as a matter of law that the trial court erred in deeming the verdict advisory and nonbinding. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of a judgment consistent with the jury verdict. The court also vacated the award of fees and costs in favor of the homeowners but declined to award fees and costs to defendants given the peculiarities of the case. The court reversed and remanded the judgment in favor of the homeowners in their action for injunctive relief. The court remanded the case for entry of a judgment consistent with the jury's verdict. The court also vacated the award of fees and costs in favor of the homeowners but declined to direct an award of fees and costs to defendants.
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
