Heywood v Department of Commerce, Division of Real Estate

Heywood appealed the denial of his application to renew his real estate agent license. The panel affirmed. It held that even if laches applies here, the renewal application was initiated by Heywood and was denied only months later, the earlier disciplinary proceeding was thus irrelevant as to laches and there is no time limit on considering past misconduct and division considered current information addition to the past misconduct. It held preclusive effect was properly given by division to a 2009 bankruptcy court order finding Heywood had defrauded a client as the order firmly declared Heywood committed fraud and leaving open the issue of punitive damages and the settlement between Heywood and the trustee did not make the order tentative, Heywood was presented at a five day trial on the issue of fraud and Heywood could have appealed the finding of fraud but chose to settle instead and the settlement did not vacate the order as there is nothing on the bankruptcy court docket indicating entry of a vacatur.

Anderton v Boren

Anderton appealed summary judgment to Borden in this breach of trust case. The panel affirmed. It held Anderton had standing to appeal as she is a beneficiary of the trusts in question and the possibility she may be removed as a beneficiary in the future does not change the result. It held there was no error in striking the declaration of one of the beneficiaries to the trust as it was not based on personal knowledge, contained only opinions and created no material factual disputes. It affirmed summary judgment as Anderton presented no evidence of commingling assets, of self-dealing and neither Anderton nor the other plaintiffs here were entitled to an accounting under the terms of the trusts. The panel finally awarded Boren attorney fees on appeal and remanded for calculation.

State v Hull

Hull appealed his burglary conviction. The panel affirmed. It held there was no ineffective assistance of counsel as the decision to not request a trespass instruction was reasonable given the lack of eyewitness or forensic evidence that Hull had been in the house in question.