Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Talisker Finance, LLC and its affiliates defaulted on a $150 million loan secured by real property in Utah. The lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Midtown Acquisitions L.P., foreclosed on the collateral and purchased it at two sheriff’s sales, but the sale proceeds did not satisfy the debt. Talisker later discovered that the lenders had entered into a Common Interest Agreement with the court-appointed receiver, allegedly colluded to depress the sale price, and deterred potential bidders. Talisker claimed that the lenders bundled properties in a way that made them less attractive and that the receiver stalled a third party’s interest in purchasing some of the collateral.The Third District Court, Summit County, reviewed Talisker’s complaint seeking equitable relief from the deficiency judgments, arguing that the lenders’ conduct violated Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 69B(d) and common law principles. The district court accepted Talisker’s factual allegations as true for the purpose of the motion to dismiss but found that Talisker had broadly waived its rights related to the foreclosure process in the loan documents. The court concluded that the lenders’ actions, while possibly unfair, were not unlawful under the terms of the agreements and dismissed the complaint.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Talisker’s waivers in the loan documents were broad and explicit enough to encompass all rights under Rule 69B(d), including the requirement that property be sold in parcels likely to bring the highest price. The court further held that Talisker had also waived any equitable or common law claims related to the foreclosure sales. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, finding no error in its conclusion that Talisker’s waivers precluded relief. View "TALISKER PARTNERSHIP v. MIDTOWN ACQUISITIONS" on Justia Law

A teacher at a public charter school in Utah was terminated after a series of events involving a student and the student's parent. The teacher, a former Air Force veteran, reprimanded the student for disruptive behavior, leading the student to quit the team and report the incident to his father. The parent, dissatisfied with the teacher's conduct, began raising concerns about the teacher's alleged inappropriate behavior, including claims of physical and verbal abuse, to school administrators and at a school board meeting. The parent also communicated these concerns to the school superintendent and, according to the teacher, made a report to local police. Investigations by both the police and the Division of Child and Family Services found no evidence of abuse, and the teacher was ultimately terminated without a stated reason.The teacher filed suit in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), abuse of process, and tortious interference with economic relations. The parent moved for early dismissal under Utah’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), arguing the statute protected his speech and actions. The district court denied the motion, finding UPEPA inapplicable and concluding that the teacher had stated prima facie cases for all claims.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah held that the district court erred in finding UPEPA did not apply, as the parent’s statements concerned a matter of public concern. The Supreme Court also found that the teacher failed to state prima facie cases for IIED and abuse of process, requiring dismissal of those claims. The court vacated the denial of the special motion as to defamation and tortious interference, remanding for further consideration of whether the teacher could establish a prima facie case, particularly regarding privilege. The court ordered costs and fees related to the motion be awarded as provided by UPEPA. View "Mackey v. Krause" on Justia Law

Talisker Finance, LLC and its affiliates defaulted on a $150 million loan secured by real property, which they had borrowed to develop parcels in Utah. After several loan modifications and assignments, the lenders—Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Midtown Acquisitions L.P.—foreclosed on the collateral and purchased it at two sheriff’s sales, where they were the only bidders. The sale proceeds did not satisfy the debt, and the lenders continued to pursue the deficiency. Later, Talisker discovered information suggesting that the lenders, in coordination with a court-appointed receiver, may have taken actions to depress the sale price, including deterring potential bidders and bundling properties in a way that made them less attractive.Talisker filed suit in the Third District Court, Summit County, seeking equitable relief from the deficiency judgments, alleging that the lenders’ conduct during the foreclosure process violated Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 69B(d) and constituted fraud or grossly inequitable conduct. The lenders moved to dismiss, arguing that Talisker had broadly waived any rights or defenses related to the foreclosure process in the loan documents. The district court accepted Talisker’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but concluded that the waivers were enforceable and covered the rights Talisker sought to assert, including those under Rule 69B(d). The court found no unlawful irregularity in the sales and dismissed the complaint.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Utah affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Talisker’s broad and explicit waivers in the loan documents encompassed all rights and defenses related to the foreclosure sales, including the right to challenge the method of sale or seek equitable relief based on alleged unfairness or irregularities. The court concluded that, regardless of the alleged conduct, Talisker had contractually relinquished any basis for relief. View "TALISKER PARTNERSHIP v. MIDTOWN ACQUISITIONS" on Justia Law

Julie and Gerald Ross (Grandparents) filed a petition in district court to adopt their grandchildren, R.K. and J.K., and to terminate the parental rights of the children's biological parents, Steven and Denielle Kracht (Parents). The district court terminated the parental rights of both parents, finding that they had abandoned and neglected their children, that the father had abused the children, and that both parents were unfit. The adoption petition by the Grandparents was still pending.Parents appealed the termination order to the Utah Court of Appeals before the adoption action concluded. The Court of Appeals certified the matter to the Utah Supreme Court for original appellate review. The central issue was whether the termination order issued by the district court was immediately appealable before the adoption action concluded.The Utah Supreme Court held that Utah Code subsection 78B-6-112(3) creates a statutory exception to the final judgment rule, allowing termination orders issued by district courts to be immediately appealable. The court concluded that the statutory language of subsection 78B-6-112(3) indicates that a district court may enter a final order terminating parental rights before a final decree of adoption is entered, thus making such termination orders appealable upon entry. This decision overruled the Court of Appeals' previous decision in In re Adoption of K.R.S., which had held that no exception to the final judgment rule allowed parties to appeal a district-court-issued termination order before it was final. The Utah Supreme Court retained the case for further argument on the merits of the Parents' challenges to the termination order. View "Ross v. Kracht" on Justia Law

A.K. (Mother) is the mother of four minor children, B.C., K.J.C., D.W.C., and B.C. In 2013, while living in Alaska, the children’s biological father, C.C. (Father), was charged with two counts of sexual abuse of a minor and subsequently incarcerated. That same year, Mother and the children moved to Utah. In 2015, Father was convicted, and in 2016, Mother divorced Father and married L.K. (Stepfather), who then began living with and raising the children alongside Mother.In 2020, Mother and Stepfather filed a petition in district court for Stepfather to adopt the children, which included a motion to terminate Father’s parental rights. Father intervened and opposed the termination and adoption. After an evidentiary hearing, the Second District Court in Weber County terminated Father’s parental rights.Father immediately appealed the termination order. While his appeal was pending, the Utah Court of Appeals decided In re Adoption of K.R.S., holding that a termination order issued by a district court is not immediately appealable when an underlying adoption petition remains unresolved, as it does not constitute a final judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the case and, for reasons articulated in Ross v. Kracht, 2025 UT 22, retained jurisdiction to hear further arguments on Father’s challenges to the termination order. The court issued an order requesting the parties to brief the merits of Father’s challenges to the termination order. View "In re Adoption of B.C." on Justia Law

Valderra Land Holdings, LLC owns real property encumbered by a performance trust deed held for the benefit of Jenco, LC and others. After Valderra defaulted on its obligations, Jenco sought judicial foreclosure. Valderra counterclaimed, asserting a right to cure its default and requested the court to determine the amount owed. The district court set the payoff amount and directed Jenco to instruct the trustee to reconvey the property upon Valderra’s tender of funds.Valderra tendered the payoff amount, but Jenco did not instruct the trustee to release the trust deed. Instead, Jenco appealed the judgment and moved for a stay of the obligation to reconvey the property under rule 62(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court granted the stay over Valderra’s objection, which argued that the order was injunctive and should be governed by rule 62(c), not 62(b).The Supreme Court of Utah reviewed the case and agreed with Valderra that the district court erred in granting the stay under rule 62(b). The court held that rule 62(b) applies only to stays of orders or judgments to pay money, not injunctive orders, which are governed by rule 62(c). The court found that the order requiring Jenco to instruct the trustee to reconvey the property was injunctive in nature. Consequently, the district court should have considered the motion under rule 62(c), which requires the court to determine whether the conditions for the security of the rights of the adverse party are just.The Supreme Court of Utah reversed the district court’s decision to grant the stay under rule 62(b) and vacated the order rejecting Valderra’s rule 62(i) objection. The court also denied Valderra’s request for appellate attorney fees, as Valderra was not awarded fees in the lower court. View "Jenco v. Valderra Land Holdings" on Justia Law

Ron Griffin filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against the law firm Snow Christensen & Martineau (SCM). On the last day for timely service, Griffin’s process server attempted to serve SCM’s registered agent but was unsuccessful. Instead, the process server left the complaint with Dawn Chapman, SCM’s administrator. SCM moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Chapman was not authorized to receive service under rule 4(d)(1)(E) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires service on an officer, managing or general agent, or other authorized agent. The district court agreed, finding that Chapman did not exercise general power involving judgment and discretion in her role.Griffin appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court, relying on previous cases Beard v. White, Green & Addison Associates, Inc. and In re Schwenke, held that Chapman was a managing or general agent because she was more than a mere employee and had some responsibility for the firm’s affairs. The court also found that it was fair to conclude that service on SCM was proper under the circumstances.SCM petitioned for certiorari review, and the Utah Supreme Court granted the request. The Supreme Court concluded that Chapman was not a managing or general agent under rule 4(d)(1)(E). The court defined a managing or general agent as someone with general power involving the exercise of judgment and discretion, which Chapman did not have in her role as an administrator. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Griffin v. Snow Christensen and Martineau" on Justia Law

Quintin Grillone resigned from his position as a police officer in 2014 while under investigation for providing false information to a prosecutor regarding a traffic citation against his mother. The Peace Officer Standards and Training Division (POST) did not learn of the incident until 2019 when Grillone disclosed it in his application to join a new police department. Following an investigation, POST initiated disciplinary proceedings, and an administrative law judge found that Grillone's conduct constituted obstruction of justice. The POST Council then retroactively suspended Grillone’s certification for three years.Grillone sought judicial review by the Utah Court of Appeals, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings were time-barred by the four-year catch-all statute of limitations for civil actions under Utah Code § 78B-2-307(4). He contended that the statute governing POST disciplinary proceedings referred to them as “civil actions,” thus subjecting them to the civil statute of limitations. The court of appeals, however, held that civil statutes of limitation do not apply to administrative disciplinary proceedings absent specific legislative authority and found that the POST statute did not incorporate the civil statute of limitations.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the court of appeals' decision. The Supreme Court agreed that civil statutes of limitation are generally inapplicable to administrative disciplinary proceedings unless the legislature indicates otherwise. The Court concluded that the POST statute’s reference to “civil actions” was intended to distinguish POST proceedings from criminal actions, not to incorporate the civil statutes of limitation. Therefore, the disciplinary proceedings against Grillone were not time-barred, and the POST Council’s three-year suspension of his certification was upheld. View "Grillone v. Peace Officer Standards" on Justia Law

Several young Utah residents filed a lawsuit challenging statutory provisions and government actions related to fossil fuel development. They claimed that these provisions and actions were designed to maximize fossil fuel development in Utah, which they argued endangered their health and shortened their lifespans by exacerbating climate change. They sought a declaration from the district court that these provisions and actions violated their rights under the Utah Constitution.The government defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the requested relief would not redress the alleged injuries. The Third District Court, Salt Lake County, agreed and dismissed the claims with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claims were not redressable.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the dismissal on the ground that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court found that the challenge to the energy policy provision was moot because the legislature had significantly amended the statute since the complaint was filed. The plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the remaining statutory provisions because success on those challenges would not provide relief likely to redress their injuries. The court noted that the challenged provisions did not limit the government defendants' discretion in making decisions about fossil fuel development, and thus, striking these provisions would not necessarily lead to less fossil fuel development.The court also held that the challenges to the government defendants' conduct were not justiciable because they were not supported by a concrete set of facts. The plaintiffs had identified general categories of conduct without tying their claims to any specific government actions. The court instructed the district court to modify its ruling to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs the opportunity to refile their claims if they could address the jurisdictional deficiencies. View "Roussel v. State" on Justia Law

Erik Schnibbe, an attorney, worked at the law firm of Magleby, Cataxinos, and Greenwood. After a client of the firm won a large damages award, the firm paid Schnibbe $1 million for his share of the contingency fee via direct deposit. Schnibbe believed he was promised a greater share and kept the $1 million. Years later, after leaving the firm, he sued for the additional money he claimed he was owed.The Defendants, including the firm and two of its attorneys, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Schnibbe had accepted the $1 million as full settlement of his share of the contingency fee, thus barring his claims under the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment to the Defendants.The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that all three elements of accord and satisfaction were met: an unliquidated claim or bona fide dispute over the amount due, a payment offered as full settlement of the entire dispute, and acceptance of the payment as full settlement of the dispute. The court focused on the acceptance element, determining that Schnibbe's retention of the $1 million for four years without attempting to return it or registering a protest constituted acceptance of the payment as full settlement.The Utah Supreme Court reviewed the case on certiorari. The court agreed with the lower courts that Schnibbe's conduct indicated acceptance of the payment as full settlement. The court clarified that acceptance could be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including the creditor's retention of the funds, even if the payment was received passively via direct deposit. The court held that Schnibbe's knowing retention of the $1 million for several years, without attempting to return it, constituted acceptance of the proposed accord as a matter of law. The court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. View "Magleby v. Schnibbe" on Justia Law