Olsen v Fair Co.

Olsen appealed the grant of summary judgment to Fair and Fair cross appealed the denial of is motion for attorney fees. The panel affirmed. It held that the six year statute of limitations had run before Olsen’s suit was filed here and his arguments to the contrary did not change the result because the suit was not brought to collect a sum of money due and thus the limitations statue for collecting debt did not extend the time for filing suit, the trial court properly analyzed the limitation s period form the date when the last mobile home title should have been transferred given full performance and thus properly took into account the executory nature of the contract and an argument on what payments needed to be made was unpreserved and inadequately briefed. It affirmed on the cross appeal holding judgment on limitations grounds does not prove breach and the parties’ contract required a breach by Olsen before a fee ward was authorized.

Meyer v Aposhian

Meyer appealed the denial of her petition for a protective order. The panel affirmed. It held the district court did ton clearly err in determining Aposhian’s version of events was more credible than Meyer’s account, that there was no evidence of past physical abuse, that the events here were the type found in most contentious divorce situations and giving relief here would result in making all contentious divorces stalking and that a reasonable person would not have been placed in fear for her husband’s safety as the husband obtained a protective order on his own. It also held that an argument about the standard for determine emotional distress was not preserved as Meyer did not brief the issue before the district court.

Talovic v Department of Workforce Services

Talovic appealed the order disqualifying hi form unemployment benefits and imposing a fraud penalty. The panel affirmed holding the order was supported by substantial evidence as Talovic stated he was able to work on his application but told the federal social security Administration he was disabled.

Winkler v Department of Workforce Services

Winker appealed the order requiring her to repay benefits. The panel affirmed holding substantial evidence supported the order as Winkler failed to report her application for retirement benefits and the guide to applying specifically provide information on Winkler’s obligation to report the retirement application.

Ernest Health, Inc. v Labor Commission

Health sought review of Commission’s decision to uphold a permanent disability award to one of health’s former employees. The panel affirmed. It held Commission did not abuse its discretion when it refused to consider surveillance tapes of the former employee taken after the hearing in this case as Health offered no explanation why it didn’t obtain such evidence before the hearing and Commission has authority to reject late evidence. It also held that Health’s argument that an independent medical panel was required failed to demonstrate any conflict between the treating doctor and independent physician and an argument about a reemployment plan was inadequately briefed.

Steffensen-WC, LLC v Volunteers of America of Utah, Inc.

Steffensen appealed the dismissal of its private nuisance suit against volunteers. The panel affirmed. It held that exhausting administrative remedies was not required as Volunteers is not a municipality. It held that Volunteers reply to Steffensen’s response to the motion to dismiss addressed the new matter of anticipatory nuisance raised in the response and thus complied with Rule of civil Procedure 7. It finally held the complaint was for private nuisance, did not identify elements of anticipatory nuisance and did not set out the facts demonstrating an anticipatory nuisance. Thus, dismissal on the basis that the homeless shelter has not been built was correct. The panel declined to rule on whether Utah recognizes anticipatory nuisance.

Lucero v State

Lucero appealed the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The panel affirmed holding there was no ineffective assistance of counsel as the statute of limitations had not been triggered let alone expired before eth legislature removed limitation periods for sex offense and thus raising the defense would have been futile.