Saunders v. Sharp (1991)

See Bagford v. Ephraim City, 904 P.2d 1095, 1097 (Utah 1995); Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199-200 (Utah 1991) (per curiam); Provo City Corp. v. Willden, 768 P.2d 455, 456 (Utah 1989).

See, e.g., Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 200 (Utah 1991) ("The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law for the court to determine unless the contract is ambiguous and evidence of the parties' intent (which is a matter of fact) is necessary to establish the terms of the contract."); Records v. Briggs, 887 P.2d 864, 871 (Utah.Ct.App.1994) ("Generally, when contract interpretation will be determined by extrinsic evidence of intent, it becomes a question of fact.").

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam).

“If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceeds to a review of the accuracy of the lower court’s conclusions of law and the application of that law in the case.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

To prove findings *461 of fact clearly erroneous, "an appellant must marshal all evidence in favor of the facts as found by the trial court and then demonstrate that even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the court below, the evidence is insufficient to support the findings of fact." Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199-200 (Utah 1991).

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam).

"If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceeds to a review of the accuracy of the lower court's conclusions of law and the application of that law in the case." Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam) (citations omitted).

In addition, although the Policy itself is silent to the governing law, see generally Dkt. 23-4, the parties appear to agree Utah law governs the Welshes’ contract claim, see, e.g., Dkt. 25 at 8–10; Dkt. 32 at 7–8. 115 Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 200 (Utah 1991). 116 WebBank v. Am.

But this contention runs contrary to Utah law, where “[t]he interpretation of a contract is a matter of law for the court to determine unless the contract is ambiguous and evidence of the parties’ intent (which is a matter of fact) is necessary to establish the terms of the contract.”119 A contract term is ambiguous if it “if it is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation because of uncertain meanings of terms, missing terms, or other facial deficiencies.”120 The e…

“The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law for the court to determine unless the contract is ambiguous and evidence of the parties’ intent (which is a matter of fact) is necessary to establish the terms of the contract.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 200 (Utah 1991).

This duty requires an appellant to “marshal all the evidence in favor of the facts as found by the trial court and then demonstrate that even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the court below, the evidence is insufficient to support the findings of fact.” Id. (quoting Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991)). ¶ 77 More recently, the Utah Court of Appeals explained that “in order to properly discharge the duty of marshaling the evidence, the challenge…

See Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) ("If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court. ...").

Young v. Young, 1999 UT 38, 130 , 979 P.2d 388 ; see also, eg., State v. Hopkins, 1999 UT 98, 116 , 989 P.2d 1065 ; Searcy, 958 P.2d at 2883 ; Interwest Constr. v. Palmer, 928 P.2d 18350 , 1860 (Utah 1996); Hall v. Process Instruments & Control, Inc., 890 P.2d 1024, 1028 (Utah 1995); Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991). 16 In this case, defendants' brief contains a lengthy section purporting to marshal the evidence in favor of the jury verdict.

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

See Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 200 (Utah 1991) ("The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law for the court to determine unless the contract is ambiguous and evidence of the parties' intent ... is necessary to establish the terms of the contract.").

Thus, we "'assume[] that the record supports the findings of the trial court....’" Heber City Corp. v. Simpson, 942 P.2d 307, 312 (Utah 1997) (quoting Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991)).

See Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 200 (Utah 1991) (“The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law for the court to determine unless the contract is ambiguous and evidence of the parties’ intent ... is necessary to establish the terms of the eon-tract.”).

When an appellant fails to meet the “ ‘heavy burden’” of marshaling the evidence, id. (citation omitted), we “ ‘assume[ ] that the record supports the findings of the trial court,’” Wade v. Stangl, 869 P.2d 9, 12 (Utah Ct.App. 1994) (quoting Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991)).

Because the State has not contested the trial court’s findings of fact, “ ‘the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceeds to a review of the accuracy of the lower court’s conclusions of law and the application of the law in the case.’ ” State v. Teuscher, 883 P.2d 922, 930 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (quoting Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991)).

“If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

Thus, we “‘assume[] that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proeeed[ ] to a review of the accuracy of the lower court’s conclusions of law and the application of that law in the case.’ ” Heber City Corp., 942 P.2d at 312 (quoting Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991)).

When a party fails to challenge a factual finding and marshal the evidence in support of that finding, we “assume! ] that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceed! ] to a review of the accuracy of the lower court’s conclusions of law and the application of that law in the case.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam) (citing Grayson Roper Ltd.

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199-200 (Utah 1991) (per curiam).

Absent such an effort, this court "assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceeds to a review of the accuracy of the lower court's conclusions of law and the application of that law in the case.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam). 5 .

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 200 (Utah 1991).

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam); Oneida/SLIC v. Oneida Cold Storage & Warehouse, Inc., 872 P.2d 1051, 1052-53 (Utah Ct.App.1994).

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam); Oneida/SLIC v. Oneida Cold Storage & Warehouse, Inc., 872 P.2d 1051, 1052-53 (Utah Ct.App.1994).

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

“If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceeds to a review of the accuracy of the lower court’s conclusions of law and the application of that law in the case.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

“If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceeds to a review of the accuracy of the lower court’s conclusions of law and the application of that law in the case.” Id. (quoting Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991)).

“If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

“If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceeds to a review of the accuracy of the lower court’s conclusions of law and the application of that law in the case.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

In order to attack a trial court’s fact findings, “an appellant must marshall all evidence in favor of the facts as found by the trial court.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

“If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceeds to a review of the accuracy of the lower court’s conclusions of law and application of that law in the case.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam) (citations omitted).

F. The Division’s Application of the Law to the Facts Having found that the Division’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, we next examine the accuracy of the Division’s application of the law to the facts of this case, Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (citing Grayson Roper Ltd. v. Finlinson, 782 P.2d 467, 470 (Utah 1989); and Scharf v. BMG Corp., 700 P.2d 1068, 1070 (Utah 1985)), which the Johnsons also dispute.

To prove that the trial court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous, “an appellant must marshal all evidence in favor of the facts as found by the trial court and then demonstrate that even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the court below, the evidence is insufficient to support the findings of fact.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199-200 (Utah 1991).

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (citations omitted).

“If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceeds to a review of the accuracy of the lower court's conclusions of law and the application of that law in the ease.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam) (citations omitted).

Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199-200 (Utah 1991).

“If the appellant fails to marshal the evidence, the appellate court assumes that the record supports the findings of the trial court and proceeds to a review of the accuracy of the lower court’s conclusions of law and the application of that law in the case.” Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam) (citations omitted).

See Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991) (per curiam); Scharf v. BMG Corp., 700 P.2d 1068,1070 (Utah 1985).

See Saunders v. Sharp , 793 P.2d 927 , 930-31 (Utah Ct. App. 1990), remanded on other grounds , 806 P.2d 198 (Utah 1991) (per curiam).

See Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

See Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

“This standard of review applies equally to the Court of Appeals.” Id.; see also Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 199 (Utah 1991).

See Saunders v. Sharp, 806 P.2d 198, 200 (Utah 1991) (interpretation of a contract is a matter of law unless the court must resort to extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent); Buehner Block Co. v. UWC Assocs., 752 P.2d 892, 895 (Utah 1988) (interpretation of a written contract is a question of law if determined by the words of the agreement); Big Butte Ranch, Inc. v. Holm, 570 P.2d 690, 691 (Utah 1977) (to ascertain the meaning of a contract, the court should first examine…

See Saunders v. Sharp, 793 P.2d 927 (Utah App.), cert. granted, 804 P.2d 1232 (Utah 1990), and remanded, 806 P.2d 198 (1991); and All Seasons Water Users Association, Inc. v. Northern Improvement Company, 399 N.W.2d 278 (N.D.1987), after remand, 417 N.W.2d 831 (1988).