State v Rivera

Rivera appealed her sentences for forgery and identity theft. The panel affirmed. It held there was no abuse of discretion in not providing a 10 day continuance to review the presentence investigation as Rivera was able to place all her requested corrections before the court and the district court heard testimony from the victim, argument form Rivera’s attorney and balanced the harm caused against Rivera’s mental health issues and Rivera thus failed to demonstrate any prejudice form the proceeding. It held Rivera’s argument about her sentence length was inadequately briefed as it lacked any citation to authority and that any error in not holding a mental health hearing was invited by Rivera’s insistence on following the guilty with mental illness process.

Kirton McConkie PC v ASC Utah, LLC

Kirton appealed summary judgment to ASC arguing its right to rents had priority over ASC right to setoff. The panel affirmed. It held that Kirton’s right to the rental payment of ASC to the landlord client of Kirton came from an assignment from the client and thus Kirton only had those rights and was subject to the obligations and duties of the client. It held that under the lease agreement, equitable principles allowed the district court to permit ACS to set off its rent against a large judgment entered against the client, would have been allowed against the client and thus Kirton’s claim is subordinate to the setoff right. It held that the case law relied upon by Kirton was not on point as it concerned judgment creditors not lessees

Bryner v Department of Public Safety, Driver License Division

Division appealed the district court order remanding Bryner’s informal action instead of conducting a trial de novo. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that Utah code 63G-4-402(1)(a), district courts are required to hold de novo trials and the district court therefore erred when it remanded instead. It also held there was jurisdiction over the district court order and Bryner can raise his constitutional claims at the trail de novo.

Jennifer Mota v Lawrence Mota

 Lawrence appealed the denial of his request to dismiss the protective order taken out by Jennifer. The panel affirmed. It held Lawrence preserved the issues in his appeal by raising them before the commissioner, but, review was limited to those issues and all factual findings of the commissioner are binding under rule of Civil Procedure 108. It held that dismissing a protective order in place for two years is permissive under Utah Code 78B-7-115(1), the seriousness of the underlying acts which triggered the issuance of the protective order can be considered under 115(1)(f) and the fact that Lawrence pointed a gun at Jennifer and threatened to kill her was relevant to the decision, properly conferred and formed a basis to keep the order in place.