Justia Utah Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of a homeowners' association in this dispute against Owner over unpaid assessments concluding that the HOA was entitled to collect the assessments because the HOA members in general had ratified the HOA's authority, holding that protective covenants that were not signed by the property owner are capable of ratification.The HOA in this case sued the Owner of a lot within its boundaries for unpaid assessments. The Owner argued, in response, that the HOA's governing documents were unauthorized encumbrances on the lot and therefore violated the Wrongful Lien Act. The district court granted summary for the HOA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) protective covenants that were not signed by the property owner are voidable but not void as against public policy and are thus capable of ratification; (2) the district court correctly ruled that the HOA at the authority to assess the lot at issue and correctly calculated the unpaid assessments owing to the HOA; and (3) the HOA was entitled to its attorney fees on appeal. View "Hi-Country Estates v. MountainTop Properties" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Utah State Tax Commission agreeing with the determination of Washington County that rental property owned by Durbano Properties, LC in the County did not qualify for a property tax exemption, holding that Durbano was not entitled to relief on its claims of error.For the 2010 through 2017 tax years Durbano received a residential tax exemption as provided by the Property Tax Act, Utah Code 59-2-103(3), under which property owners are allowed an exemption equal to forty-five percent of the fair market value of "property used for residential purposes as a primary residence," Utah Code 59-2-102(34)(a). Durbano brought a petition arguing that limiting the residential exemption to property used as a primary residence violated the permissive authority granted to the legislature. The Supreme Court disagreed and declined to disturb the Commission's decision, holding that Durbano provided no legal basis to invalidate the legislature's definition of "residential property" as authorized by Utah Const. art. XIII, 3. View "Durbano Properties, LC v. Utah Tax Comm'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of a homeowners association (HOA) in this lawsuit it brought to collect unpaid assessments against against the trustee (Trustee) of two trusts that each owned a lot (Lots) within the HOA's boundaries, holding that there was no error.Since at least 1979, prior owners of the Lots paid the HOA's annual assessments, but when Trustee purchased the Lots on behalf of the trust in 2009 he refused to pay the assessments. When the HOA brought this action Trustee argued that the HOA lacked authority to assess the Lots, which rendered the HOA's founding documents void and the HOA powerless. The district court concluded that the HOA was entitled to collect the past due assessments but that a bench trial was necessary to determine the amount owing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in determining that the members of the HOA collectively ratified the HOA's authority; and (2) therefore, the HOA had authority to assess the Lots. View "Hi-Country Estates v. Frank" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals denying Defendant's motion for remand under rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure after a jury convicted him of aggravated robbery, holding that the court of appeals did not err.On appeal of his conviction, Defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective by not supporting his mistaken identity defense with evidence that Defendant had prominent tattoos on his hands that were not visible in surveillance images of the robber. Defendant moved under rule 23B to supplement the record with facts concerning his trial counsel's alleged ineffective assistance. The court of appeals denied Defendant's rule 23B motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's rule 23B motion did not allege that the arresting officers would provide favorable testimony; and (2) therefore, Defendant failed to offer nonspeculative facts that, if true, would have established that he was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to question the officers about Defendant's tattoos or comment on that evidence in closing argument. View "State v. Samora" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court concluding that the parties' signed voluntary declaration of paternity (VDP) should be set aside because of the parties' fraud and a mutual mistake but that Taylor Scott should nevertheless be adjudicated the child's father, holding that there was no error.Sarah Benson and Taylor Scott, an unmarried couple, signed a VDP representing that Scott was the father of Benson's child when both parties know that Scott was not the child's biological father. When Benson later cut off contact between Scott and the child Scott filed a complaint seeking joint legal and physical custody. In response, Benson challenged the VDP. The district court set aside the VDP but concluded that, under the Utah Uniform Parentage Act, Scott should be adjudicated to be the child's father. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in looking to the factors set forth in Utah Code 78B-16-608 to disregard the genetic test results that would have excluded Scott as the child's father. View "Scott v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that Defendant, Gregory Miller, could be guilty of stalking Kendra, holding that the court of appeals did not err in interpreting the stalking statute and that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.A jury found Defendant guilty of stalking Kendra based on emails that Defendant sent to an attorney who represented Kendra and Kendra's then-employer. The trial court judge arrested the judgment, concluding that no reasonable jury could have convicted Defendant of stalking based on the emails. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) correctly interpreted the stalking statute; and (2) did not err in holding that there was sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to find Defendant knew or should have known his conduct would cause a person in Kendra's circumstances emotional distress. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's convictions based on ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that errors in the proceedings below did not prejudice Defendant.In vacating Defendant's convictions the court of appeals concluded that trial counsel had been ineffective by failing to object to introduction and use of evidence about Defendant's silence while being arrested and by not objecting to the manslaughter jury instruction. The court ultimately concluded that Defendant was prejudiced by these instances of deficient performance. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the convictions vacated by the court of appeals, holding (1) trial counsel performed deficiently in failing to object to a certain jury instruction; and (2) assuming counsel was also deficient for not objecting to the State's use of Defendant's post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence against Defendant, Defendant failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different without these errors. View "State v. Bonds" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court concluding that Pleasant Grover (City) had the power to enact a three-tiered "transportation utility fee" (TUF) but reversed the court's ruling that the TUF was actually a tax, holding that remand was required.The subject TUF charged local property owners a monthly fee corresponding to the "intensity" with which they used City roads, as determined by a study of user demand on the City's roadways, and the generated funds were to be used to repair and maintain city roadways only. At issue was whether the City had the authority to enact the TUF and whether the City properly characterized the TUF as a fee or if it was in fact a tax requiring the City to follow specific enactment procedures. The district court held that the TUF was actually a tax based on its purpose. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the City acted within its discretion in enacting the TUF; but (2) the purpose of the TUF was characteristic of a fee because it was a specific charge for a specific purpose. View "Larson v. Pleasant Grove City" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case in which the district court prohibited Father from encouraging his children to adopt the teachings of any religion without Mother's consent, holding that Father had a fundamental right to encourage his children in the practice of religion and that the district court's prohibition was not narrowly tailored to address the harms identified by the court.When they married, Father and Mother were both members of the Order, a polygamous religious community. Based on the parties' inability to agree on decisions regarding their four children, the district court granted sole legal custody to Mother and prohibited Father from encouraging the children to adopt the teachings of any religion. The Supreme Court remanded this case to the district court, holding (1) parents have a fundamental right to encourage their children in the practice of religion, and this right is not dependent upon legal custody; (2) strict scrutiny applies to this case; and (3) the district court's prohibition is not narrowly tailored to address the identified harms. View "Kingston v. Kingston" on Justia Law

In this real estate case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this complaint brought by Rocky Mountain Hospitality, LLC (Seller) against Mountain Classic Real Estate, Inc. (Buyer) and awarded Buyer its attorney fees on appeal, holding that because Seller failed to release its interest in the deposit before filing its complaint it was barred from pursuing other remedies.Buyer entered into a contract with Seller to purchase a motel. The purchase price included an earnest money deposit. Buyer failed to purchase the motel. Seller brought this action seeking damages but failed to release its interest in the earnest money deposit before filing the complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the contract's default provision, Seller was obligated to release its interest in an earnest money deposit before filing a complaint if Seller wished to pursue a remedy other than liquidated damages; and (2) Seller was deemed to have elected to retain the deposit as liquidated damages and was barred from pursuing its claims. View "Rocky Mountain Hospitality v. Mountain Classic Real Estate, Inc." on Justia Law