State v Wager

Wager appealed the admission of a photo taken by an informant without the informant authenticating it. The panel affirmed. It held there is no explicit requirement that a witness to the events depicted in a picture authenticate the picture as the Utah Supreme Court has tacitly approve admission of video evidence based on testimony that the place and persons depicted therein are fairly and accurately depicted. Here, a detective ha d spoke with wager and photographed the bathroom where the photo was taken and this testimony was enough to admit the photo. It held that Wager had inadequately briefed his other four issues and failed to preserve two of them as well.

In the Interests of Z.G. (H.V. v State)

H.V. appealed the juvenile court’s order denying reunification services on the grounds that permanent guardians are ineligible and services were not in eh interests of Z.G. the panel affirmed. It first held that permanent guardians are eligible for reunification services as 78A-6-304 and 312 mention guardians along with parents when discussing reunification services, guardians can be required to pay for expenses when a child is removed from a guardian and permanent guardianship is a favored placement outcome protected from challenge by parents. It affirmed the denial here given the four removals of 3 year old Z.G. in a matter of months and H.V.’s lying about her drug use.

Bonghir v Mantha

Bonghir appealed the entry of a second supplemental decree awarding alimony and attorney fees to Mantha. The panel affirmed but remanded for limited fact-finding. It held Manhta’s Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion was properly granted as the first supplemental decree was based on an erroneous statement in the stipulation that Mantha could support herself when in reality she had no income. It held there was no abuse of discretion in denying Bonghir’s Rule 60(b) motion as Mantha’s perjury about her visa status and ability to legally work played no part in the district court’s alimony decision. It held Bonghir’s arguments as to alimony were inadequately briefed and thus appellate review was waived. It finally affirmed the grant of attorney fees to Mantha as she could not afford to pay her attorney. The attorney fee issue was remanded to make reasonableness findings about the amount sought by Mantha’s attorney.

Brasher v Christensen

Brasher appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract and bad faith complaint. The panel affirmed. It held the water use agreement was not an enforceable contract as it had no terms, no evidence of offer, acceptance or consideration and by its own text required a lease or purchase agreement to become effective. It affirmed the district court’s factual finding that there was no meeting of the minds as Christensen testified the farm sale and water use agreement were interconnected while Brasher testified they were independent and the district court was allowed to resolve this dispute by finding no meeting of the minds.

Telegraph Tower, LLC v Century Mortgage, LLC

Telegraph appealed summary judgment grated to several investors who deposited money with Century which was subsequently lost causing Telegraph to default on several accounts in a building project. The panel affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. It held summary judgment was inappropriate because there was a dispute of inferences about whether Century was Telegraph’s agent, investors agent or the agent of both and a further dispute about whether depositing the monies with century fulfilled investors’ obligations or if they had a duty to make sure the monies made it to Telegraph. The panel affirmed the ruling that investors were not jointly and severally liable because the loan agreement listed each investor and the percentage of the total loan separately which means liability is several. It held that the district court erred in capping each investor damages to the amount lent because it failed to apply the applicable test for consequential damages and indeed invited the parties to appeal to see if the ruling was correct. This issue was remanded for fact finding under the controlling test. It finally held that investors were entitled to attorney fees both below and on appeal only for those incurred because of the joint and several issue and remanded for calculation of the correct amount of fees.

Jones v Jones

Father appealed the district court order increasing mother’ visitation time. The panel affirmed. It held there was no error by the district court in not requiring a material change in circumstances as the change required to allow a change in visitation does not need to be substantial or material and the parties’ decree provided for changes in visitation if the parties moved within a reasonable destine form each other. It held more visitation to mother was appropriate here given the medical expenses of the children, inability for mother to continue to rent a house in the same town as husband and the children’s friends and family and mother’s fiancé all living in mother’s new hometown. It held the appeal was not frivols and denied mother’s motion for attorney fees.

State v Saenz

Saenz appealed his sentence arguing his motion to withdraw his guilty plea should have been granted. The panel affirmed holding the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion as it was made after sentence was pronounced and Saenz got all the relief he could have received when his sentence was corrected to the agreed 15 years to life.

State v Garcia

Garcia appealed the district court order dismissing his challenge to the prole board’s restitution order for lack of jurisdiction. The panel affirmed holding the sentencing court lost jurisdiction one year after sentencing, the board was authorized to order restitution, the district court system is required to put the order on Garcia’s criminal case docket and none of the statutory provisions resurrect sentencing court jurisdiction or permit any challenge to the board’s order.

Gutierrez v State

Gutierrez appealed the dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition. The panel affirmed adopting the reasoning of the district court that all the claims could have been raised on appeal and there was no evidence Gutierrez’s attorney was the cause of the failure to raise the claims on appeal.