Federated Capital Corporation v Abraham

Federated appealed summary judgment to Abraham in this credit card collections action. The panel affirmed holding even if Abraham lost her right to raise a limitations defense by not including a section number in her answer, Federated waived any objection t the defense by addressing the limitations defense at summary judgment and thus plain error review is unavailable and even if review were available there was no possible harm to Federated given the complete argument including citations in the summary judgment memorandum and Federated’s fully briefed response. It also awarded Abraham attorney fees on appeal and remanded for calculation of those fees.

Federated Capital Corporation v Deutsch

Federate appealed summary judgment to Deutsch in this credit card collections action. The panel affirmed holding Federated never made its argument that the choice of law provision in the credit card contract made Utah the place of breach to the district court, the argument or issue was unpreserved and allowing review would both frustrate judicial economy and be unfair. It awarded Deutsch attorney fees on appeal and remanded for calculation of those fees.

Federated Capital Corporation v Nazar

Federated appealed summary judgment to Nazar in this credit card collections case. The panel affirmed as the issues were identical to the Abraham and Deutsch cases above and held Federated’s claims were waived or unpreserved. The panel awarded Nazar her attorney fees on appeal and remanded for calculation.

Federated Capital Corporation v Shaw

Federated appealed summary judgment to Shaw in this Credit card collections case. The panel affirmed. It held that two issues in this case were identical to those raised in Abraham and Deutsch above and affirmed on those and affirmed on the issue of whether Utah is the place of performance because  Federated failed to engage the district court’s reasoning on the issue let alone demonstrate error. The panel awarded Shaw his attorney fees on appeal and remanded of calculation.

In the Matter of the J. Melvin and Glenda D. Bulloch Living Trust (Murie v Bulloch)

Murie appealed the summary judgment to Bulloch that an amendment to the Trust was void and the entry of final judgment without deciding various motions. The panel affirmed. It that under Utah Code 75-5-503, a power of attorney must expressly authorize the attorney in fact to make changes to a trust, the power of attorney here did not expressly authorize Bulloch to make changes to trust on behalf of Melvin and thus the amendment was void as a matter of law. It affirmed as to entry of judgment as the various motions were never submitted for decision and in any event by the time they were field the district court had already resolved the only issue in this case.

State v Balfour

Balfour appealed the revocation of his probation. The panel affirmed. It held there was no error in allowing the use of multiple affidavits to allege various violations under Utah code 77-18-1(12)(b)(i) ass the singular includes the plural and there was no reason to believe the practice is inconsistent with legislative intent, the fact the sentencing judge retired did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to revoke, and there was no error in the district court using its own language in describing the conduct that violated probation as probation is a judicial branch program and the violations were sufficiently proven as Balfour’s contact with his minor son and grandchildren violated the terms of his probation and the uncontested evidence supported a finding of willful refusal to complete sex offender treatment.

State v Biebinger

Biebinger appealed his firearms and other convictions arising form a traffic stop and subsequent high-speed chase. The panel affirmed. It held there was no ineffective assistance of counsel here concerning Biebinger’s company because counsel cannot be held accountable for facts not disclosed to him and poor performance as a witness cannot be the basis for doubts about competency, an earlier motion for an evaluation was not relevant given the focus on competency at a point in time and there was no prejudice as any competency motion would have been rejected.

Foye v Labor Commission et al.

Foye sought review of the Commission’s decision denying his worker’s compensation claim. The panel set aside the decision and remanded. It held that Commission abused its discretion in overruling Foye’s objection to a medical panel report as there was no evidence the panel members were experts in the treatment of carbon monoxide poisoning or preexisting pseudo-dementia which were the medical issues in this case and Foye suffered prejudice as the report was relied upon to reject Foye’s claim of medical causation. The panel ordered Commission to appoint a new panel with qualified embers and reevaluate the case after the new panel files its report. It rejected Foye’s argument that Utah Administrative Code R602-2-1(F)(3) was an unconstitutional deletion of legislative authority as Commission retains authority over the medical examination process.

State v Gardner

Gardner appealed his rape convictions. The panel affirmed. It held Gardner’s confession was properly admitted as he waived his Miranda rights by initiating conversation with the officers in the room about victim and her mother planning to falsely accusing him of rape after invoking his right to counsel and this waiver by conduct was knowing and voluntary given Gardner’s status as a convicted sex offender who was facing unrelated charges at the time of his interrogation. It held that Gardner’s argument that the district court erred in rejecting a pela deal was unpreserved as did not challenge the rejection below. It held that Gardner’s ineffective assistance claim was inadequately briefed lacking any record support and failed to demonstrate any prejudice.

LJ Mascaro, Inc. et al. v Herriman City

LJ appealed summary judgment to City in its challenge to the denial of its application for a nonconforming use status for their topsoil business. The panel affirmed. It held the record did not demonstrate that LJ had been granted nonconforming status for its business by Salt Lake County before City annexed the property and thus the decision to deny was not arbitrary or capricious. It held that LJ’s argument that a failed annexation by a different city meant the topsoil business was legal when City annexed was unpreserved and LJ failed to prove the business was a nonconforming use when City annexed it an thus failed to prove the decision to deny was illegal.

In the Interests of B.C. and A.C. (B.C. and T.C. v State)

Parents appealed the termination of their parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held the juvenile court relied upon the totality of the circumstances not just mother’s drug use to terminate parental rights, that parents’ challenge to medical release was unpreserved, an incorrect statement that father did not obtain a substance abuse evaluation did not go into the juvenile court’s reasoning, that there was no clear error in finding mother was so threatening that a doctor would not meet her during business hours and admitting parents’ criminal records was proper.