AmericanWest Bank v Kellin

Kellin appealed the deficiency judgments and attorney fee award against him. The panel affirmed. It held that under the deficiency statute, Utah Code 57-1-32, Bank was entitled to a judgment for the remaining amounts due on the loans in question as it presented evidence of market value, the district court did not error in valuing the condominium units as a whole instead of fractionally given the lack of a market for fractional units and did not error in rejecting summing up fractional values as this would violate the standards for appraisal. The panel held there was no error in using Bank’s expert witness testimony even though that court acknowledged significant credibility issues with the evidence as the district court on the whole found the testimony the most reliable evidence in the record. The panel awarded bank attorney fees for the appeal.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v Wright

Wright appealed judgment entered in favor of Bank declaring her trust deed no longer in effect and awarding Bank attorney fees. The panel affirmed. It held that under the all-inclusive trust deed, both the loan Wright took out to buy a house and the obligation to Wright from the buyers to pay on the first note evidenced in a second note secured the same amount of debt, this amount was paid by Bank with a new loan to the buyers, even if the new buyers had to pay wright instead of the first lender, Wright would have had to pay the lender and thus there was no debt to secure and the trust deed was no longer n force. As to attorney fees, the panel held that Bank was entitled to its fees under Utah Code 57-1-38 as Wright failed to raise her good faith defense in her answer.

Express Recovery Services v Reuling

Reuling appealed judgment for services for medical expenses from a car crash. The panel affirmed. It held there was jurisdiction to hear the appeal as Reuling field an appropriate motion under rule of Civil Procedure 52 and 59 and field a notice of appeal within 30 days of the motions’ rejection. It held that the amount calcite by the district court as damages was not clear error as that court properly accepted the evidence from the medical provider of the reasonable value of its services which is all the law requires.

Yudin v Department of Workforce Services

Yudin appealed the denial of his application for unemployment benefits. The panel affirmed. It held that because Yudin worked as a substitute teacher and had every expectation of working after summer break, his claim was properly denied under Utah Code 35A-4-405(8) which bars benefits for education employees between sessions of school.

State v Sandridge

Sandridge appealed his sentence. The panel affirmed. It held the district court evaluated each claim by Sandridge of error in his presentence investigation and granted partial relief by removing a juvenile adjudication from Sandridge’s criminal history score.

In the Interests of C.O.(J.O. v State)

J.O. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held that the district court’s finding of unfitness was supported by J.O. moving back in with C.O.’s abusive father, that J.O. received appropriate services from the state and termination was in C.O.’s best interest as her foster family wanted to adopt her.

Martin v Department of Workplace Services

Martin appealed the order finding her appeal of denial of benefits untimely. The panela affirmed as the notice of appeal was late and Martin’s explanation that she didn’t know he could file on time was not an excuse for the late filing.