Lebrecht v Deep Blue Pools and Spas, Inc.

Deep Blue appealed the district court ruling that a binding settlement agreement existed between eh parties and that court’s refusal to sanction Lebrecht for dishonesty. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held there was no enforceable settlement agreement here because the document that purported to memorialize the agreement was ambiguous on its face with numbers that were not identified and no explanation who was to pay the amounts in question; the recorded negotiations demonstrate that the terms of the purported settlement were still not resolved at the end of the session;  Deep Blue wanted to consult with its attorney before signing off on the settlement; and Lebrecht stated the document was not binding. Thus the negotiations were preliminary and the parties intended to have their attorneys draft the actual contract settling the dispute. The panel upheld the denial of sanctions holding there was no clear error in the finding that Lebrecht had a good faith belief the parties had entered a settlement agreement.

Spring Gardens, Inc. v Security title Insurance Agency of Utah, Inc.

Spring appealed summary judgment to Security on its claim of negligent failure to record a trust deed and the denial of its motion for reconsideration. The panel affirmed. It held that Spring failed to respond to Security’s requests for admissions, was thus deemed to admit no closing took place and, because closing was the duty  triggering event in the complaint, had no claim as  result of the deemed admitted facts. The panel also held Spring was dilatory in failing to move to amend the complaint, move to withdraw the admissions, failing to take additional discovery and failing to timely make the new arguments in the reconsideration motion and thus reconsideration was properly denied.

Jesse H Danise Family Trust v Public Service Commission

Trust appealed Commission’s water rate order. The panel affirmed. It held that Commission did not exceed its authority in finding Trust’s agreement with the water utility to be unreasonable and unjust as Utah state statute allows Commission to make such determinations when a public water utility is involved as is the case here; prior decisions of the Court of Appels involved the relationship between Trust and the water utility when that utility was a private entity and thus did not bind Commission. It held the issue of the administrative law judge treatment of absence of trust’s trustee at the rate hearing was inadequately briefed and in any even trust was treated fairly by allowing prehearing written testimony and allowing for post hearing briefing. It finally held that the Commission did not error in excluding certain trust property form the utility’s service area as nothing in the agreement between the utility and Trust obligate the utility to provide water to the property in question.

Boyle v Clyde, Snow & Sessions. P.C.

Boyle appealed the district court order awarding part of the contingent attorney fee in a wrongful death case to Clyde. The panel dismissed. It held that under Utah Code 38-2-7(4)(a), Clyde had to intervene in the underlying wrongful death case or file a new lawsuit, that it never field to intervene in the underlying suit, filed its objection after settlement which made its objection untimely even if it could be understood to be a motion to intervene, and the actual parties to the underlying case did not waive the requirements of intervention as they objected to Clyde’s efforts to join the case. The panel remanded for entry of an order dismissing the claims about attorney fees for lack of jurisdiction.

Badger v MacGillivray

Badger appealed the order enforcing a settlement agreement. The panel affirmed. It held that the district court had authority to summarily decide the motion to enforce as there was already a judgment in place, that MacGillivray offering to pay a smaller amount now rather than limit collection to seized property was separate consideration and thus the settlement agreement was binding contract and there was no material difference between the oral and written decisions of the district court. The panel held that Badger should be sanctioned for filing dales materials in her initial appeal and set the sanction at the reasonable attorney fees incurred by MacGillivray to strike the false material and for the preparation for hearing and participation in the hearing on the sanctions issue.

State v Garcia

Garcia appealed his robbery conviction. The panel affirmed. It held the victim’s testimony that Garcia grabbed her purse after stopping and staring at her was sufficient to support eh conviction and the jury instructions adequately explained the required mens rea of purpose or intent to deprive another of property.

Wood v Salt Lake City Corporation

Wood appealed judgement for City in his personal injury claim arising from tripping in a pothole on a City owned street arguing the district court erred in finding no breach of duty to keep the streets reasonably safe. The panel affirmed holding Wood failed to marshal the evidence to demonstrate error in the determination there was no breach and that Wood also failed to demonstrate that any City employee had knowledge of the pot hole.

Slater v Pans Out, Inc.

Slater appealed summary judgment against her in her slip and fall case. The panel affirmed  holding Slater’s evidence of an alleged oral contract for Pans Out to remove snow and ice only reflected the building manager’s understanding that Pans Out would remove snow and ice  not Pans Out’s agreement to remove snow and ice and thus there was no duty to remove snow and ice.