Stenquist v JMG Holdings, LLC, McBride and Wengreen

McBride appealed summary judgment to Stenquist ruling Stenquist’s security interest in certain real property was superior to any held by McBride. The panel affirmed. It held that McBride’s security interest under the trust deed on the property in question was extinguished when he accepted a quitclaim deed in lieu of foreclosure from JMG as full satisfaction of outstanding debt and ancillary duties to protect the property did not change the analysis as security interest cannot exist once the secured debt is satisfied.

Anderson v Anderson

Husband appealed the child support and property division orders of the district court. The panel affirmed. It held that husband’s challenges to child support had to be rejected as he failed to provide transcripts of the relevant testimony and failed to demonstrate the district court erred in relying on proof of paycheck deductions for calculating child care costs. It held there was no error in including settlement proceeds husband received in a fair housing dispute because he sought lost wages and rents which are martial property. It held that husband failed to preserve his argument that his attorney in the fair housing case should be allowed to testify as he failed to get a definitive ruling on the matter and in any event the district court was able to make its decision on the documentary evidence present. It finally rejected husband’s request for attorney fees and granted wife’s request as she prevailed both below and on appeal.

PC Riverview LLC v Cao

Riverview appealed judgment for Cao in its suit for rent under a lease which Cao was a guarantor. The panel reversed and remanded for entry of judgment against Cao. It held that the agreement between Riverview and the tenant to extend the time for payment did not, under the common law, relieve Cao of her guarantee and thus Riverview is entitled to judgment against her.

In the Matter of the estate of Vern Anderson (Terry v Anderson)

Terry appealed the exclusion of her expert report and the denial of her new trial motion. The panel affirmed. It held that Terry failed to preserve the expert report issue as the report was excluded based on her decision to present it atrial and in any event she agreed to the appointment of a court expert and her own expert in his report did not state the letter in question was genuine. As to the new trial motion, the panel held sufficient evidence was in the record to support the district court’s findings were supported by expert testimony, discrepancies in the notary acknowledgement and the lack of a signature by Anderson’s wife even though she was co-owner of the property being described.

In the Interests of O.P. (O.P. v State)

O.P. appealed the juvenile court’s order that he serve jail time. The panel affirmed. It held that under Utah Code 78A-6-117, jail can be an “alternative to detention” as detention is defined as secure locations for minors and jail cannot be used for children. It held that jail here was appropriate as O.P. drove drunk and the juvenile court considered general deterrence and individual accountability in making its decision.