Blackhawk Townhouse Owners Association Inc. v J.S.

J.S. appealed the denial of her motion to set aside the judgment arguing she was incapacitated when served and when summary judgment was granted. The panel affirmed. It held that review of factual findings made during consideration of motions under Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) is for clear error not de novo. It held that J.S. did not challenge the district court ruling that she was presumed component until a court determined otherwise ion 2015 and thus she was competent when served in 2014 and thus affirmed on service issue. It held the district court’s conclusion Association did not know J.S. was incapacitated and did not have reason to believe she was incapacitated was supported by competent evidence and thus Association owed no duty to J.S. to initiate guardianship proceedings. It affirmed denial of rebuttal evidence involving veracity of another witness as the proposed testimony was speculative and awarded Association attorney fees on appeal.

Uzelac v Fire Insurance Exchange

Uzelac appealed summary judgment to Exchange in their homeowners insurance claim case. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It affirmed as to a bridge loan Uzelac took out as their argument did not demonstrate that the loan was covered living expense and the cases cited in support were inapposite. It affirmed as to rental value of a comparable mountain vacation home as Uzelac failed to present evidence at summary judgment as to the name of the adjuster who allegedly told them no coverage was available nor any details about content or setting of the conversation and thus there was insufficient factual evidence to defeat summary judgment. It reversed and remanded as to identified reconstruction expenses as Exchange did not raise those expenses in its summary judgment motion. It finally affirmed on Uzelac’s bad faith claim as Exchange properly denied coverage as to the bridge loan, Uzelac failed to prove misrepresentation and any liability for the malfeasance of the reconstruction contractor is tort based not contract based.

Barrett v State

Barrett appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief petition. The panel affirmed. It held the district court erred in ruling the petition was procedurally barred because it was brought within one year, ineffective assistance claims can be made in a petition without seeking to withdraw a guilty plea under Utah supreme Court precedent and the case relied upon by the state dealt with when the one year limit runs based on knowledge o factual basis of claims and dies not set up a procedural bar. It affirmed on the alternative ground that Barrett did not prove prejudice here as he signed a pela agreement setting out the possibility of prison time if restitution was paid as of the date of sentencing, stated to the district court at the change of plea hearing that he had read the agreement and stated he understood that he faced prison time if he did not pay restitution and thus the fact he did receive prison time after he did not pay restitution was foreseeable.

Lauritzen v First American Title Insurance Company

Lauritzen appealed summary judgment to Title on his title insurance claim. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It held there was no claim for unmarketable title as this is limited to situations involving the right of ownership not the physical condition of the property involved or the inability to put the property to a given economic use as Lauritzen claims is the case here. It held there was coverage for defective title as one lot which had an overlap with another lot, but, no coverage as to the other four lots described in the incorporated lot as there was no inaccuracy or discrepancy in the description of those lots. It held summary judgment based on First’s affirmative defenses was inappropriate as Lauritzen contacted First soon after learning about problems with the overlapping lot, consent to recording an amended plat would not obviate damages as to the overlapping lot and Lauritzen was allowed to testify about the value of the land involved and disputes about the accuracy of the valuation preclude summary judgment.