laches doctrine in Utah

2012The district court found that a petition for extraordinary relief filed four years afer the October 3, 2006 decision of the Board at the original parole grant hearing constituted “an unreasonable delay in which to file the petition” and therefore the petition should be dismissed as untimely under the doctrine of laches. ¶3 In Renn, the Utah Supreme Court stated that while petitions filed under rule 65B(d), which was formerly rule 65B(e), “should be filed within a reasonable time after the act complained of has been done or refused, there is no fixed limitation period governing the time for fil

2012The district court found that a petition for extraordinary relief filed four years after the October 8, 2006 decision of the Board at the original parole grant hearing constituted "an unreasonable delay in which to file the petition" and therefore the petition should be dismissed as untimely under the doctrine of laches. 13 In Renn, the Utah Supreme Court stated that while petitions filed under rule 65B(d), which was formerly rule 65B(e), "should be filed within a reasonable time after the act complained of has been done or refused, there is no fixed limitation period governing the time for fi

2024“The application of laches to a particular set of facts and circumstances presents a mixed question of law and fact.” Peterson v. Pierce, 2019 UT App 48, ¶ 9 , 440 P.3d 833 (quotation simplified).

2024“The application of laches to a particular set of facts and circumstances presents a mixed question of law and fact.” Peterson v. Pierce, 2019 UT App 48, ¶ 9 , 440 P.3d 833 (quotation simplified).

2024Whether the court chose and applied the correct legal standard is a question of law “that we review for correctness.” Peeples v. Peeples, 2019 UT App 207, ¶ 11 , 456 P.3d 1159 . ¶11 As discussed below, our analysis on this point focuses on the court’s application of the doctrine of laches and, in particular, on its determination that Bruce was prejudiced by Nicole’s delay in asserting a right to possession of the Home.

2024Whether the court chose and applied the correct legal standard is a question of law “that we review for correctness.” Peeples v. Peeples, 2019 UT App 207, ¶ 11 , 456 P.3d 1159 . ¶11 As discussed below, our analysis on this point focuses on the court’s application of the doctrine of laches and, in particular, on its determination that Bruce was prejudiced by Nicole’s delay in asserting a right to possession of the Home.

2024Second, the party claiming laches must demonstrate that it “was prejudiced by that delay.” Id. (quotation simplified); see also Laches, Black’s 20221044-CA 6 2024 UT App 31 McFarland v. McFarland Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining “laches” as “[t]he equitable doctrine by which a court denies relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed in asserting the claim, when that delay has prejudiced the party against whom relief is sought”). ¶15 Nicole concedes that the first element of the laches test— unreasonable delay—is met here, given her eight-year delay in objecting to Bruce’s possess

2024In the Current Lawsuit, Lewis again raised a quiet title claim, arguing this time—under the doctrine of laches—that U.S. Bank and its predecessors in interest “unreasonably delayed enforcing their rights against the Property.” This claim was based on his factual allegations that “[f]rom July 2010, [U.S. Bank] or its claimed predecessors in interest could have taken action against the Property” but failed to do so until 2016. ¶20 Both claims concern the Property, were motivated by Lewis’s desire to prevent foreclosure of the Property, and concern 20220434-CA 8 2024 UT App 3 Lewis v. U.S. Bank T

2023Regardless of whether a statute of limitations applies, “the doctrine of laches may [still] apply in equity.” Estate of Price v. Hodkin, 2019 UT App 137, ¶ 15 , 447 P.3d 1285 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 456 P.3d 388 (Utah 2019). 20210794-CA 9 2023 UT App 35

2023Regardless of whether a statute of limitations applies, “the doctrine of laches may [still] apply in equity.” Estate of Price v. Hodkin, 2019 UT App 137, ¶ 15 , 447 P.3d 1285 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 456 P.3d 388 (Utah 2019). 20210794-CA 9 2023 UT App 35

2023Regardless of whether a statute of limitations applies, “the doctrine of laches may [still] apply in equity.” Estate of Price v. Hodkin, 2019 UT App 137, ¶ 15 , 447 P.3d 1285 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 456 P.3d 388 (Utah 2019). 20210794-CA 9 2023 UT App 35

2023In her response, Robert’s ex-wife set forth nine separate affirmative defenses, including the allegation that Robert’s “claims are barred by the statute of limitations for objecting to and/or opposing the” writ of garnishment, “and by the doctrine of laches.” 20200808-CA 12 2023 UT App 81 In re Harding Trust Pretrial Motions ¶30 Following the filing of the two competing petitions and the responses, the litigation entered the discovery phase.

2020However, because we affirm the court’s determination that Jensen did not establish her claims of fraudulent nondisclosure regarding the Option Agreement and the Riverton Corners property by clear and convincing evidence, we have no occasion to reach these other claims of error. 20190433-CA 13 2020 UT App 124 Jensen v. Cannon other than fraud.

2020I. ¶56 In the course of analyzing whether the district court properly dismissed Jensen’s claim for fraudulent nondisclosure, we are called upon to interpret our supreme court’s statements in Anderson v. Kriser, 2011 UT 66 , 266 P.3d 819 , and apply those statements to the facts of this case.

2020I. ¶56 In the course of analyzing whether the district court properly dismissed Jensen’s claim for fraudulent nondisclosure, we are called upon to interpret our supreme court’s statements in Anderson v. Kriser, 2011 UT 66 , 266 P.3d 819 , and apply those statements to the facts of this case.

2019Furthermore, because "Utah has abolished any formal distinction between law and equity," "the doctrine of laches may apply in equity, whether or not a statute of limitation also applies and whether or not an applicable statute of limitation has been satisfied." 7 Veysey v. Nelson , 2017 UT App 77 , ¶ 7, 397 P.3d 846 (quotation simplified). ¶16 Utah courts have regularly considered the applicability of the doctrine of laches in cases concerning interests in real property. 8 See, e.g. , Insight Assets , 2013 UT 47 , ¶ 22, 321 P.3d 1021 (holding that laches barred a lender from asserting an inter

2019Furthermore, because "Utah has abolished any formal distinction between law and equity," "the doctrine of laches may apply in equity, whether or not a statute of limitation also applies and whether or not an applicable statute of limitation has been satisfied." 7 Veysey v. Nelson , 2017 UT App 77 , ¶ 7, 397 P.3d 846 (quotation simplified). ¶16 Utah courts have regularly considered the applicability of the doctrine of laches in cases concerning interests in real property. 8 See, e.g. , Insight Assets , 2013 UT 47 , ¶ 22, 321 P.3d 1021 (holding that laches barred a lender from asserting an inter

2019ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶9 First, the Pierces contend that Peterson's claims were untimely and the district court erred in determining that her claims were not barred by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. 2 "The application of a statute of limitations is a legal determination, which we review for correctness." Griffin v. Cutler , 2014 UT App 251 , ¶ 14, 339 P.3d 100 .

2019ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶9 First, the Pierces contend that Peterson's claims were untimely and the district court erred in determining that her claims were not barred by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches. 2 "The application of a statute of limitations is a legal determination, which we review for correctness." Griffin v. Cutler , 2014 UT App 251 , ¶ 14, 339 P.3d 100 .

2018"Laches has two elements: (1) lack of diligence on the part of the claimant and (2) an injury to the defendant because of the lack of diligence." Plateau Mining Co. v. Utah Div. of State Lands & Forestry , 802 P.2d 720 , 731 (Utah 1990). ¶46 We agree with the district court's determination that the laches defense does not apply.

2018For one thing, our supreme court has rejected a similar argument in Green River Canal Co. v. Olds , 2004 UT 106 , 110 P.3d 666 , and we are persuaded by the reasoning employed by the court there.

2018For one thing, our supreme court has rejected a similar argument in Green River Canal Co. v. Olds , 2004 UT 106 , 110 P.3d 666 , and we are persuaded by the reasoning employed by the court there.

2018“To successfully assert a laches defense, a defendant must establish both that the plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing an action and that the defendant was prejudiced by that delay.” Veysey v. Veysey, 2014 UT App 264, ¶ 16 , 339 P.3d 131 (quotation simplified).

2018“To successfully assert a laches defense, a defendant must establish both that the plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing an action and that the defendant was prejudiced by that delay.” Veysey v. Veysey, 2014 UT App 264, ¶ 16 , 339 P.3d 131 (quotation simplified).

2018Accordingly, without opining on the merits of Fehr’s equitable claims or the application of the laches defense, we reverse the court’s dismissal of these claims. 20160996-CA 7 2018 UT App 136 Fehr v. Stockton arrangement described by Fehr “is void under the statute of frauds.” Without analysis, the district court agreed and concluded that the statute of frauds barred Fehr’s complaint. ¶16 Utah’s statute of frauds provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he following agreements are void unless the agreement, or some note or memorandum of the agreement, is in writing, signed by the party to be charg

2017Whether laches applies is a question of law, which we review for correctness. 3 See John son v. Johnson, 2014 UT 21 , ¶ 8 & n.11, 330 P.3d 704 .

2017Whether laches applies is a question of law, which we review for correctness. 3 See John son v. Johnson, 2014 UT 21 , ¶ 8 & n.11, 330 P.3d 704 .

2015And second is the notion, recognized in authority outside of Utah, and which we hereby adopt as the law of this state, that an option clause must be exercised in a reasonable period of time. 8 This is consistent with the longstanding principle of good faith and fair dealing, which requires parties to act in ways that are "consistent with the agreed common purpose and the justified expectations of the other party," Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 2004 UT 101, ¶ 43 , 104 P.3d 1226 (internal quotation marks omitted), and with the doctrine of laches, which can bar a plaintiff from prevail

2015And second is the notion, recognized in authority outside of Utah, and which we hereby adopt as the law of this state, that an option clause must be exercised in a reasonable period of time. 8 This is consistent with the longstanding principle of good faith and fair dealing, which requires parties to act in ways that are "consistent with the agreed common purpose and the justified expectations of the other party," Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 2004 UT 101, ¶ 43 , 104 P.3d 1226 (internal quotation marks omitted), and with the doctrine of laches, which can bar a plaintiff from prevail