Faucheaux v Provo City

Faucheaux’s wife had a history of drug abuse and attempted suicide. After she snorted prexcirtion medication, Faucheaux called 91. The officers who responded evaluated her, put her to bed and ordered Faucheaux to leave her alone. She died shortly thereafter. Faucheaux sued for wrongful death. The district court ranted summary judgment to City ruling Faucheaux and his wife were owed no duty and, if there was a duty here, governmental immunity applied. The panel reversed. It held the officers created a duty when they evaluated wife, sent her to bed and instructed Faucheaux to leave her alone because they left wife in greater peril and created a special relationship with wife. Immunity did not apply as the officers’ actions were operational not discretionary as the acts did not evaluate various factors to set policy for a large group of people. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Burke v State

Burke petitioned for post-conviction relief arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a potential alibi. The district court granted his petition. The panel reversed holding there was no deficient performance as the potential alibi only eliminated one of seven hours the crime could have occurred and the evidence would have allowed the state to introduce evidence Burke stole a checkbook  and forged several checks which would have been prejudicial.

Bartlett v Bartlett

Father appealed the order awarding physical custody to wife. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that the family court failed to adequately set out its reasoning for the award given it recently admonished Mother for interfering with Father’s visitation and none of the experts in the case supported an award of physical custody to Mother. Thus the conclusion that Mother was better able to maintain a positive relationship between the children and both parents was unsupported.

Valerios Corp. v Macias

Valerios sued Macias for trademark and tradename violations. The district court issued a preliminary injunction against using the trademarks but not eh tradename. The judge later inadvertently drove by Marcia’s restaurant and noticed there had been no changes to the sign. The judge thereafter extended the injunction to the tradename. On Valerios’ motion and after a hearing, the district court held Macias in criminal contempt and sentenced him to the maximum fine ($1,000) and jail time (30 days) allowed under the statute. It also awarded damages to Valerios on a per day basis. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. It upheld the extension of the injunction holding the district court based the change on a change in understanding of Utah’s registration law not its ex parte drive by. It upheld the contempt conviction as there is no jury trial right under federal law when the fine is low as here or jail time is less than six months which it was here as well. It held Macias’ state constitutional argument was undeveloped and thus rejected it. It reversed the damage award holding the per day damages had no basis in fact and were thus speculative and remanded for determination of actual damages.

In the Interests of M.A. (G.A. v State)

G.A. appealed the termination of his parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held that abandonment without just cause was proved as G.A. refused to allow the required visit and assessment, missed half his visits and had committed acts of domestic violence which made placement unlawful under Utah Code 78A-6-307. The panel affirmed the best interests determination as M.A. had bonded with his foster family and the foster parents want to adopt him.

The Lodges at Bear Hollow Condominium Homeowners Association, Inc. v Bear Hollow Restoration, LLC

Homeowners sued Restoration and a member thereof which was the general contractor for construction defects and breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment to the contractor and denied Homeowners’ motion to impose a constructive trust on Restoration’s claims against subcontractors. The panel affirmed. It held that Homeowners failed to prove that the contactor was Restoration’s alter ego as it failed to demonstrate that the capitalization level was inadequate under the circumstances or that the contractor failed to observe corporate formalities. The panel also affirmed on the constructive trust issue as Homeowners failed to prove any egregious misconduct or how its lawsuit created equitable interests in the claims against the subcontractors. The panel finally held that Homeowners failed to provide any reasoned analysis of whether the district court erred when it denied Homeowners motion for writs to attach and seize the claims against the subcontractors and thus affirmed on that basis.