Camco Construction, Inc. et al v Utah Baseball Academy, Inc. et al.

Academy appealed judgment to Camco and other defendants on it claims. The panel affirmed. It affirmed on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claims as it was brought on behalf of corporate entities which are incapable of experiencing emotion as a matter of law or were derivative claims which are barred under Utah Supreme Court precedent and the one claim by an individual plaintiff failed as the alleged conduct by bank employees was not outrageous. It affirmed as to lost profits due to no proof of damages. It held Academy’s briefing on its fraud claim was inadequate. Assuming civil jury waivers must be knowing and voluntary, the panel affirmed the order striking Academy’s jury request as failure to read documents is no defense to signing a jury waiver and held the barraging power overbredth and ambiguity augments were inadequately briefed. It affirmed as to unpaid interest by a bank as Academy did not argue the factual finding of not damages was erroneous, affirmed as to fiduciary duty as none existed between Academy and the bank, affirmed on bad faith due to lack of damages, affirmed on the allegations of failure to cooperate in refinancing based on the undisputed finding of good faith by the bank and held the challenge to the payoff calculation was inadequately briefed. It finally affirmed denial of Academy’s’ motion for mistrial based on the undisputed finding that it was filed six months after trail ended.

Cattani v Drake et al.

Cattani appealed judgment to Drake and the other defendants on claims by a family trust. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed as to claims involving Drake’s advice about a partnership interest as the issue was litigated in an earlier case, the interests of the trust and Cattani’s children were aligned and the trust was party to both the earlier suit and this one. It reversed summary judgment to Drake as to a requested accounting as the trust documents require successor trustees to give account fort all trust assets actually received in trust by the successor trustee and Drake misconstrued those provisions when he advised no accounting be made. It reversed as to the judgmental immunity defense as Drake failed to demonstrate how the law was uncertain when he advised no accounting be made. It reversed as to an allegation of misuse of trust funds as the district court ignored evidence that such misuse occurred and thus a genuine dispute exists on the issue. It affirmed judgment to the personal attorney of a previous trustee on an unjust enrichment claim based on the unchallenged finding that the claim was against the previous trustee not the attorney. It affirmed as to aiding and abetting as to the personal attorney as Cattani did not overcome the district court finding the attorney did not know of any misappropriations by a previous trustee and if aiding and abetting claims in the trustee or fiduciary setting exist in Utah knowledge would be an element of such a claim.

State v Mooers

Mooers challenged one item in the restitution order. On remand form the Utah Supreme Court, the panel reversed. It held that security bars added after Mooers burglarized a house were not damages, loss, harm or economic injury to the property as of the time of the break in and thus the expense for adding the bars could not be awarded as restitution under Utah Code 77-38a-102(6) and -302.

State v Brocksmith

Brocksmith appealed his convictions under the Measurable Amount Statute. The panel affirmed holding Brocksmith’s constitutional arguments were not preserved and there was no ineffective assistance of counsel as Brocksmith’s argeutmns are novel without any statutory or case law support and thus Brocksmith failed to prove any reasonable attorney would make them.

State v Balfour

Balfour appealed his sodomy conviction. The panel affirmed. It rejected Balfour’s ineffective assistance claim holding Balfour represented himself at a point in the proceedings when he could have renewed a malicious prosecution claim and thus could not overcome the lack of preservation on the malicious prosecution claim. It held there was no error in admitting evidence of three prior bad acts as they were admitted for the permissible purpose of rebutting Balfour’s claim that victim here fabricated her accusations and the similarities between the conduct here and the prior bad acts created extremely strong probative value which overcame any unfair prejudice. It finally held that Balfour did not provide a summary of the evidence the witnesses he wanted to call would provide and thus cannot prove prejudice resulting from their exclusion.

Grewe, Shannon v Grewe, Brian

Brain appealed the setting aside of the parties’ postnuptial agreement and several factual findings and legal conclusions associated with the divorce decree. The panel affirmed. Applying plain error review, the panel affirmed the setting aside of the agreement  as brain failed to prove the district court used the wrong burden of proof or that the findings were insufficient to prove fraudulent inducement. It affirmed the valuation of the retirement account here as Brian failed to provide any documentation proving his assertion that some of the funds in the account were proceeds of a marital loan. It affirmed the valuation of the parties’ personal property as the evidence supported the value adopted by the district court. It finally affirmed the child support and alimony awards as Brian failed to document his alleged imminent decrease in income, there was no error in the district court finding Brian’s testimony about future income not credible and no error in finding any decrease is temporary given Brian’s testimony his income would return to current levels in about one month after a job change.

State v Young

Young appealed the denial of his motion to suppress his confession and the consecutive sentences imposed for his various sex crimes involving a minor. The panel affirmed. It affirmed as to the confession as any trickery used by the detectives in claiming something happened to Young’s family was not used to coerce a confession as police assured Young all was well and Young never raised the issue after the assurances and there was no evidence Young’s fatigue overcame his will as he did not exhibit any signs of impairment and Young confessed early in the interview. It affirmed the consecutive sentences as the record indicated the district court considered the presentence investigation report, had the relevant information before it, considered the required factors and made a permissible choice to impose consecutive sentences particularly as it grouped offenses together instead of ordering all seven sentences be served consecutive to each other.

Davis v Labor Commission

Davis petitioned for review of Commission’s denial of her application for workers compensation funeral and burial benefits. The panel affirmed. It rejected Davis’ argument that the instrumentality exception to the coming and going rule applied because employer ownership of the truck Davis’ husband was driving when he was involved in a fatal rollover down a hillside and employer’s paying for fuel and maintenance only moderately support a finding of control as employer in fact allowed husband to choose his route, did not dictate apparel choices or mandate that husband transport anyone to work and employer only had a minimal benefit from the truck as hauling materials did not require allowing husband to use truck to commute and this conclusion is consistent with the court’s VanLeeuwen precedent.

Basin Auto Paint Specialists, Inc. v Ultimate Autobody and Accessories, LLC

Ultimate appealed summary judgment to Basin. The panel reversed because the district court failed to analyze whether Basin was entitled to judgment as a matter of law and fundamental fairness was denied Ultimate as its attorney was improperly allowed to withdraw and Basin did not serve the required notice to appear or appoint.