Smith v Kirkland

Kirkland appealed summary judgment to Smith on his claim for compensation forming a trust. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held summary judgment on the compensation issues was inappropriate here as Smith had already moved for summary judgement on those issues, the district court found genuine issues of fact excited about those issues and the supporting evidence in the second motion was neither authenticated nor did it support the arguments about compensation rates. It held the appeal of the motion to set aside judgment was moot and the attorney fee award had to be reversed as the underlying judgment had been reversed. It finally held the first summary judgment to Smith ruling the trust here was valid was correct as Utah courts have the power to amend the terms of a trust when an unanticipated event occurs which would thwart the donor’s intent and the donor’s death here was unanticipated and allowing the trust to come into existence effectuated his intent.

Ramsey v Retirement Board and Kane County Human resource Special Service district

Ramsey appealed summary judgment to District arguing equitable discovery overcame the statute of limitations. The panel affirmed. It held there was no basis to apply equitable discovery as the facts which gave rise to Ramsey’s claim were statutes available at all times in the Utah code, District did not conceal any facts and there is no injustice here as Ramsey gets unexpected retirement benefits for the limitations period while allowing suit would open District up to multiple stale claims.

Gillett v Brown

Gillett appealed summary judgment to Brown and a corporate defendant in his breach of contract and fraud case. The panel affirmed. It affirmed judgment to Brown and the corporate defendant on breach of contract holding Gillett failed to challenge the independent ground that a release barred the suit and thus forfeited any challenge to that ruling. It affirmed summary judgment to Brown on the fraud claim holding Gillett failed to meaningfully engage the district court analysis of the forum section clause and the out of state tolling statute. It declined to award attorney fees to Brown under the rules of Appellate procedure as the appeal as a whole was not an egregiously case as there were complex issues of fact and law.

In re A.B. and A.B. (A.B. v State)

Mother appealed the family court order granting permanent custody and guardianship to the children’s grandfather. The panel affirmed. It held there was sufficient evidence to support the award of custody as mother made absolutely no effort to take advantage of state services ordered by the court and failed to rebut the prima facia evidence of that fact and thus there was no error, plain or otherwise.

Doxon v Department of Workforce Services

Doxon appealed the order denying her application for unemployment benefits. The panel affirmed holding Doxon’s testimony that she quit her job to move to California supported the concluding she voluntarily left her job and the fact her job search in California did not result in a job did not establish good cause to quit.

South Jordan City v Summerhays

Summerhays appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy. The panel affirmed. It held there was no jeopardy when Summerhays pled guilty in justice court as that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over class A misdemeanors like the one Summerhays was charge with, the out of state cases relied upon by Summerhays all deal with procedural issues not subject matter jurisdiction and if Summerhays is convicted, he will receive credit for the 7 days he spent in jail.