Colosimo v Gateway Community Church

Colosimo appealed summary judgment to Church in their wrongful death claim arguing church owed a duty of care to their trespassing son. The panel affirmed. It held that under the common law, Church owed the trespassing son no duty to exercise reasonable case and the fact that two other trespasses occurred over 14 years did not put Church on notice that minors habitually trespassed and thus there was no duty created by those two prior incidents. It held city sign ordinances did not create a duty to the trespassing son because it imposed new requirements on landowners and is thus subject to common law defenses under Utah case law and the common law defense of no duty to trespassers applies here and defeats any claim Colosimo may have under the ordinance. It finally affirmed the denial of Colosimo’s motion to strike as the district court did not rely on the materials sought to be stricken and affirmed the grant of Church’s motion to strike as the statements stricken were legal conclusions outside the expertise of the engineer witness.

Olsen v State of Utah and Utah State Treasurer, Unclaimed Property Division

Olsen appealed summary judgment to Division rejecting his claim to all funds held by Division of Olsen’s judgment debtor. The panel affirmed. It held that under Utah Code 67-4a-102 and -405, the only way for a judgment creditor to obtain a judgment debtor’s unclaimed property in the trust fund administered by Division is to make a claim under 405 for the actual amount of the judgment and thus the attempt to obtain all funds in the trust it through a writ of attachment, as here, is ineffective especially as Utah code 63G-7-603 bars the issuance of execution, attachment or garnishment against government entities like Division.

Earl v LaVerkin City

Earl appealed summary judgment to City arguing the statute of limitations had not run. The panel agreed and reversed holding a negligence claim accrues when all events giving rise to the claim occur and here that happened when Earl slipped and fell not when City started the road reconstruction project creating the slip and fall hazard.

Thompson v Wardley Corporation

 Thompson appealed the dismissal of her motion to set aside judgment. The panel affirmed. It held that because the motion was based on allegations that Wardley and other defendants withheld information during discovery, it alleged fraud and the motion was brought after the 30 days limitation period for motions based on fraud and was thus untimely. The panel held that because the motion was untimely, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider her motion for sanctions or her argument that one defendant was an alter ego of Wardley.