Iota, LLC v Davco Management Company LC

Davco appealed the contempt judgment entered against it and another defendant after remand from an earlier appeal. It held Davco was barred from attacking the underlying order it was found to have violated under the collateral bar doctrine as it failed to challenge the order before violating it, this rule has been applied by Utah appellate courts since 1932 at the latest, the district court had jurisdiction to issue the underlying order as it had jurisdiction over breach of contract suits and personal jurisdiction over the defendants and if the transparently invalid exception exists in Utah law, Davco was ineligible to raise it as it did not seek emergency relief from the underlying order. The panel held there was no ambiguity on the underlying orders command that Davco “shall deposit all rents collected” with the clerk of court because there was no language limiting application to past rent or rent then in Davco’s possession and thus applied to future rent as well and this conclusion is buttressed by the provision keeping the requirement in effect while the suit was pending or until changed by the district court and the requirement that tenants of the building in question also pay rent to the clerk of court and by Davco’s own conduct in having rent go to them for deposit with the clerk instead of having tenants directly pay it. It held that the process used by the district court after remand were proper as the district court undertook a new analysis of the contempt motion and properly considered the record developed in the first hearing as nothing in the earlier appeal disturbed the record or factual findings. It held the damage award was proper as the duty to pay rents to the clerk was distinct from the contractual duty to pay to Iota, the challenge to the calculation was inadequately briefed. It finally affirmed the attorney fee awards as the two hearings were part of the same case, the findings about attorney fees from the first hearing were properly given judicial notice, and the challenge to the evidentiary basis for the fee wayward and the cost award was inadequately briefed. It also awarded Iota fees incurred on appeal and remanded for calculation.Todd v State

Todd appealed the dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition and denial of several motions. The panel affirmed on summary disposition. It held the notice of appeal was too late to vest jurisdiction over the dismissal order and the denials were correct because claims concerning the parole board must be initiated through a petition for extraordinary relief, the new evidence claim could have been raised years ago on appeal and his attempt to withdraw his guilty plea must be done by proper motion.