Reeve & Associates, Inc. v Hansen

Reeve sued to foreclose on mechanic’s lines on Hansen’s property for services provided a developer who was attempting to buy and develop Hansen’s land. The district court ruled the developer was not an agent of Hansen and thus the liens were improper, that Hansen should not receive attorney fees, and an unjust enrichment claim failed for lack of proof of damages. The panela affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It held that under Utah Code 38-1-18, the successful party in all actions to enforce mechanic’s liens are entitled to attorney fees both when the plaintiff and when defendant is successful. It hele the issue was preserved and the nearly $60,000 difference between what Reeve sought and obtained and given the fact Hansen defeated the liens, Hansen is the successful party here, is entitled to fees and the issue was remanded. The panel affirmed the district court’s finding the liens were not abusive as Reeve had a good faith belief in their validity and there was no evidence of inflating the amount claimed to cloud title. The panel held the remaining issues raised by Hansen had no bearing on the outcome of the appeal and thus declined dot review them. On cross-appeal, the panel held that Reeve failed to cite the evidence which supported the district court’s conclusion it was not Hansen’s agent and thus its arguments fails. Hansen was also awarded attorney fees on appeal for work done on the lien issues.   

State v Fletcher

Fletcher appealed his drug dealing convictions. The panel affirmed. It held the minor discrepancies in the testimony of one of the officers involved in the controlled buys were not material and there was other evidence of guilt introduced by the state. It held that a witness testifying conversations with other officers jogged his memory did not prove he lacked personal knowledge of the events in question. The panel finally held there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to not dismiss a potential juror who knew prosecutors in the district attorney’s office and one of the officers involved in the case, the officer involved had arrested her son and her son had been a confidential informant as any inference of bias was rebutted through additional voir dire.