LD III, LLC v Davis

LD appealed the contempt order and attorney fee award entered against it. The panel affirmed. It held there was no clear error in finding two of FD’s witnesses not credible as LD failed to marshal the evidence. It held that the order to close on a real estate sale did not offer LD the option to not close as the district court emailed LD’s attorney informing him that failure to close could result in a finding of contempt. It held LD’s actions after an earlier appeal did not require reversal as LD did not seek a retroactive stay. It held LD’s attorney’s advice argument was unsupported by any evidence and thus it rejected the argument. It finally affirmed the damages and fee award as LD failed to marshal the evidence in support of the contempt damage award and presented no evidence whatever on the fee award.

JENCO LC v Perkins Cole LLP

Perkins, a junior lienholder, appealed summary judgment for JENCO in its foreclosure action. The panel affirmed. It held that a settlement agreement between JENCO and Perkin’s client did not waive its trust deed right to foreclose on default as the agreement references an amended option agreement signed the same day which obligated the client to pay certain sums for the real property in question and thus JENCO remained he senior creditor. It held that Perkins’ argument that summary judgment was inappropriate due to material factual disputes failed as Perkins identified no material facts in dispute. It finally awarded JENCO attorney fees for the appeal against the client who defaulted.

Woodward v LaFranka

Woodward appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to change custody arguing the court failed to implement the mandate from a prior appeal. The panel affirmed. It held that the district court complied with the mandate as to two exerts by explaining why it disagreed with their testimony instead of dismissing it the testimony without explanation. It held that the district court failed to comply with the mandate as to a special master report as it did not engage in any sort of explanation as to why the report was discounted. The panel held the district court complied with the mandate as to best interest analysis by finding neither party abused the child, explaining why it found Woodward and LaFranka both emotionally stable, evaluating child’s bond with his stepbrother and concluded it favored Woodward , explained why it weighted child’s good bond with both parents and stepparents as favoring LaFranka , and explained why it concluded Woodward’s interference with child’s phone conversations with LaFranka outweighed LaFranka’s unsubstantiated claims of abuse against Woodward. Thus, the district court substantially complied with eh mandate and any errors were harmless as a third look at those areas would not likely change the outcome.

State v Knaras

Knaras appealed his criminal nonsupport conviction arguing erroneous jury instructions. The panel affirmed. It held the instructions adequately informed the jury that the state bore the burden of disproving Knaras’ affirmative defense and explaining reasonable doubt; that the instructions accurately informed the jury that partial payment of support was not a defense as the statute does not require complete failure to support and focuses on the result of nonsupport in denying children the necessities of life and allowing nominal payments to be a defense would undermine the purpose of the statute; and that four nonstatutory facts listed nan instruction were not erroneous as one merely restated the statutory exclusion of voluntary un- or underemployment as a defense and the other three were superfluous as not present in the case and in any event were likely consistent with Utah case law..

Khan v Tax Commission

Khan appealed the determination of his renter’s refund. The panel affirmed. It held that under the plain language of the refund provision, both income from a retirement account and capital loss carryover taken during a tax year are included in the income calculation. It further held that Commission’s erroneous income calculation was harmless as the correctly calculated amount results in the same refund.