Appellees motion in Utah

2026As for the facts related to the bench trial, “we recite the facts from the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the trial court and present conflicting evidence only as necessary to understand issues raised on appeal.” Hillam v. Hillam, 2024 UT App 102, n.2 , 554 P.3d 1137 (cleaned up). 20240011-CA 2 2026 UT App 58 Krueger v. Seed Capital (the REPC), and the seller accepted the Kruegers’ $375,000 offer on the Property. ¶4 Unfortunately, the Kruegers struggled to obtain traditional mortgage financing prior to the deadline under the REPC.

2026As for the facts related to the bench trial, “we recite the facts from the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the trial court and present conflicting evidence only as necessary to understand issues raised on appeal.” Hillam v. Hillam, 2024 UT App 102, n.2 , 554 P.3d 1137 (cleaned up). 20240011-CA 2 2026 UT App 58 Krueger v. Seed Capital (the REPC), and the seller accepted the Kruegers’ $375,000 offer on the Property. ¶4 Unfortunately, the Kruegers struggled to obtain traditional mortgage financing prior to the deadline under the REPC.

2026We recite the facts pertaining to Appellees’ motion for summary judgment “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood, PC v. Schnibbe, 2024 UT 43, n.1 , 562 P.3d 679 (cleaned up).

2026We recite the facts pertaining to Appellees’ motion for summary judgment “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood, PC v. Schnibbe, 2024 UT 43, n.1 , 562 P.3d 679 (cleaned up).

2026As for the facts related to the bench trial, “we recite the facts from the record in the light most favorable to the findings of the trial court and present conflicting evidence only as necessary to understand issues raised on appeal.” Hillam v. Hillam, 2024 UT App 102, n.2 , 554 P.3d 1137 (cleaned up). 20240011-CA 2 2026 UT App 58 Krueger v. Seed Capital (the REPC), and the seller accepted the Kruegers’ $375,000 offer on the Property. ¶4 Unfortunately, the Kruegers struggled to obtain traditional mortgage financing prior to the deadline under the REPC.

2024CONCLUSION ¶34 440 North fails to meet its burden of persuasion for each of its arguments—first, that the district court erred in granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and, second, that the district court erred by denying 440 North’s rule 60(b) motion. ¶35 Affirmed. 20220785-CA 18 2024 UT App 73

2023Among other findings of fact, the district court entered the following: Ken had taken out two mortgages on the Draper House; the Agusta Trust did not receive the proceeds of, or receive any benefit from, these loans, rather they were used by Ken; the Agusta Trust never paid the mortgage or other liabilities for the Draper House or the Emigration Lot, rather these payments were made by Ken and Michele, neither of whom paid rent to live in the Draper House; Ken gave Michele $2.5 million, which she used to establish three 20210636-CA 16 2023 UT App 135 In re Agusta National Trust #1 single-member

2023Finally, Michele argued that summary judgment was inappropriate on the Appellees’ unlawful detainer 20210636-CA 13 2023 UT App 135 In re Agusta National Trust #1 claim because she had a right to reside in the Draper House for five years after Ken’s death. ¶21 The district court granted Appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment. ¶22 First, the district court ruled that Michele “failed to present any relevant, admissible evidence to support the establishment” of the Second Trust or of Ken’s “intent to create” the Second Trust.

2023Among other findings of fact, the district court entered the following: Ken had taken out two mortgages on the Draper House; the Agusta Trust did not receive the proceeds of, or receive any benefit from, these loans, rather they were used by Ken; the Agusta Trust never paid the mortgage or other liabilities for the Draper House or the Emigration Lot, rather these payments were made by Ken and Michele, neither of whom paid rent to live in the Draper House; Ken gave Michele $2.5 million, which she used to establish three 20210636-CA 16 2023 UT App 135 In re Agusta National Trust #1 single-member

2022“We review the district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings for correctness, affording no deference to the district court.” Pierucci v. U.S. Bank, NA, 2015 UT App 80, ¶ 8 , 347 P.3d 837 . ¶19 Second, Sorensen contends that the court erred in denying his second motion to amend his complaint.

2022“We review the district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings for correctness, affording no deference to the district court.” Pierucci v. U.S. Bank, NA, 2015 UT App 80, ¶ 8 , 347 P.3d 837 . ¶19 Second, Sorensen contends that the court erred in denying his second motion to amend his complaint.

2022The court 20200648-CA 6 2022 UT App 113 Sorensen v. Sparks first held that Sorensen did not allege in his first amended complaint “that he signed the articles o[f] organization or any operati[ng] agreement, nor does he allege that the defendant businesses ever acknowledged his membership,” nor did “the facts set out in the complaint . . . support [Sorensen] becoming a member after the formation of defendant businesses.” Additionally, after recognizing the eighteen questions Appellees listed in their earlier motion, the court held that in any event, “declaratory judgment would not . . . termina

2022“Also, we review the interpretation and application of a statute for correctness, granting no deference to the district court’s legal conclusions.” Berneau v. Martino, 2009 UT 87, ¶ 9 , 223 P.3d 1128 . 20200915-CA 5 2022 UT App 70 Shell v. Intermountain Health Services ANALYSIS ¶13 Shell contends that the district court erred in granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss on the rationale that the Act applied to his case because his claims related to or arose from his health care treatment and because Ete and Alkire were health care providers under the Act.

2022“We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for correctness, granting no deference to the decision of the district court.” Hudgens v. Prosper, Inc., 2010 UT 68, ¶ 14 , 243 P.3d 1275 .

2022“We review the grant of a motion to dismiss for correctness, granting no deference to the decision of the district court.” Hudgens v. Prosper, Inc., 2010 UT 68, ¶ 14 , 243 P.3d 1275 .

2022These issues are questions “of statutory interpretation, and so we march down the well-trod path we take when we hope to understand the meaning of statutory language.” Scott v. Wingate Wilderness Therapy, LLC, 2021 UT 28, ¶ 21 , 493 P.3d 592 .

2022These issues are questions “of statutory interpretation, and so we march down the well-trod path we take when we hope to understand the meaning of statutory language.” Scott v. Wingate Wilderness Therapy, LLC, 2021 UT 28, ¶ 21 , 493 P.3d 592 .

2022“Also, we review the interpretation and application of a statute for correctness, granting no deference to the district court’s legal conclusions.” Berneau v. Martino, 2009 UT 87, ¶ 9 , 223 P.3d 1128 . 20200915-CA 5 2022 UT App 70 Shell v. Intermountain Health Services ANALYSIS ¶13 Shell contends that the district court erred in granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss on the rationale that the Act applied to his case because his claims related to or arose from his health care treatment and because Ete and Alkire were health care providers under the Act.

2022“Also, we review the interpretation and application of a statute for correctness, granting no deference to the district court’s legal conclusions.” Berneau v. Martino, 2009 UT 87, ¶ 9 , 223 P.3d 1128 . 20200915-CA 5 2022 UT App 70 Shell v. Intermountain Health Services ANALYSIS ¶13 Shell contends that the district court erred in granting Appellees’ motion to dismiss on the rationale that the Act applied to his case because his claims related to or arose from his health care treatment and because Ete and Alkire were health care providers under the Act.

2021Thus, the district court in this case properly took judicial notice of the filings in the prior case and (continued…) 20200043-CA 7 2021 UT App 70 HKS Architects v. MSM Enterprises ¶14 The court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss.

2021Even if there were other conceivable reasons to explain 12x12’s failure (…continued) relied on that information in its ruling without converting Appellees’ motion to one for summary judgment. 20200043-CA 8 2021 UT App 70 HKS Architects v. MSM Enterprises to pay by March 19, 2016, such failure to pay still put [HKS] on notice that something was not right, which should have led [HKS] to inquire about the problem and thereby discover 12x12’s lack of funds.

2021“The propriety of a trial court’s 20200043-CA 10 2021 UT App 70 HKS Architects v. MSM Enterprises decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law that we review for correctness.” Erickson v. Canyons School Dist., 2020 UT App 91, ¶ 6 , 467 P.3d 917 (quotation simplified).

2021“The propriety of a trial court’s 20200043-CA 10 2021 UT App 70 HKS Architects v. MSM Enterprises decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of law that we review for correctness.” Erickson v. Canyons School Dist., 2020 UT App 91, ¶ 6 , 467 P.3d 917 (quotation simplified).

2020The court concluded that because the information Martinez provided was “inconclusive as to whether or not [Daughter] was incompetent,” it could not 20180160-CA 4 2020 UT App 134 Martinez v. Dale determine “that her incompetence tolled the statute of limitations.” Having granted the motion on these grounds, the district court declined to address Appellees’ rule 26 argument.

2020The district court denied Appellees’ motion in a well-reasoned, 20190181-CA 24 2020 UT App 122 Bad Ass Coffee v. Royal Aloha written ruling.

2020In its ruling, the court stated that it expected that on remand the county commission would remedy its denial of due process to NMA by giving it a chance to respond to sPower’s . . . letter . . . and to evaluate those arguments and consider any evidence in the record that NMA would want to call to the county commission’s attention in 20180225-CA 4 2020 UT App 79 Northern Monticello Alliance v. San Juan County evaluating whether it should have reconsidered its decision.

2020In so deciding, the court determined that the plain language of section 57-1-34 dictated that the Default Notice “both accelerated the loan and satisfied the statute of limitations simultaneously.” The court also concluded that the Johnsons’ rescission claim under TILA was barred by claim preclusion, determining that each element of claim preclusion had been met and that “the court in the [First Suit] considered and rejected [the Johnsons’] alleged TILA rescission and held it did not bar 20200012-CA 5 2020 UT App 127 Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage foreclosure.” On this basis, the court granted

2018II. ¶32 Creditors next contend that "[v]iolation of the [Act] may serve as a predicate act to support a claim for civil conspiracy." ¶33 To establish a claim of civil conspiracy, five elements must be shown: " '(1) a combination of two or more persons, (2) an object to be accomplished, (3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action, (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts, and (5) damages as a proximate result thereof.' " Peterson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 2002 UT App 56 , ¶ 12, 42 P.3d 1253 (quoting Alta Indus.

2018II. ¶32 Creditors next contend that "[v]iolation of the [Act] may serve as a predicate act to support a claim for civil conspiracy." ¶33 To establish a claim of civil conspiracy, five elements must be shown: " '(1) a combination of two or more persons, (2) an object to be accomplished, (3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action, (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts, and (5) damages as a proximate result thereof.' " Peterson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. , 2002 UT App 56 , ¶ 12, 42 P.3d 1253 (quoting Alta Indus.

2018"A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss admits the facts alleged in the complaint but challenges the plaintiff's right to relief based on those facts." Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc. , 2004 UT 101 , ¶ 8, 104 P.3d 1226 (quotation simplified).

2018"A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss admits the facts alleged in the complaint but challenges the plaintiff's right to relief based on those facts." Oakwood Village LLC v. Albertsons, Inc. , 2004 UT 101 , ¶ 8, 104 P.3d 1226 (quotation simplified).

2017"An abuse of discretion may be demonstrated by showing that the district court relied on an erroneous conclusion of law or that there was no evidentiary basis for the [district] court's ruling." Mower v. Simpson , 2017 UT App 23 , ¶ 11, 392 P.3d 861 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶20 The district court articulated two alternative bases for striking the Declaration.

2017"An abuse of discretion may be demonstrated by showing that the district court relied on an erroneous conclusion of law or that there was no evidentiary basis for the [district] court's ruling." Mower v. Simpson , 2017 UT App 23 , ¶ 11, 392 P.3d 861 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶20 The district court articulated two alternative bases for striking the Declaration.

2017They argue that even though the Appellees’ motion went unopposed, the court erred by granting summaiy judgment. ¶ 16 “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment for correctness and afford no deference to the court’s legal conclusions.” Basic Research LLC v. Admiral Ins., 2013 UT 6, ¶ 5 , 297 P.3d 578 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2017They argue that even though the Appellees’ motion went unopposed, the court erred by granting summaiy judgment. ¶ 16 “We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment for correctness and afford no deference to the court’s legal conclusions.” Basic Research LLC v. Admiral Ins., 2013 UT 6, ¶ 5 , 297 P.3d 578 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2017"Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Mountain West Surgical Center, L.L.C. v. Hospital Corp. of Utah , 2007 UT 92 , ¶ 10, 173 P.3d 1276 .

2017"Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Mountain West Surgical Center, L.L.C. v. Hospital Corp. of Utah , 2007 UT 92 , ¶ 10, 173 P.3d 1276 .

2014Bee Aspenwood, LLC v. C.A.T., LLC, 2003 UT App 28, ¶¶ 20-21 , 73 P.3d 947 .

2014Bee Aspenwood, LLC v. C.A.T., LLC, 2003 UT App 28, ¶¶ 20-21 , 73 P.3d 947 .

2009Comm'n, 2007 UT App 374, ¶ 12 , 173 P.3d 218 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 7 Johnson further claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide her motion for reconsideration or Appellees' motion to strike Johnson's photographs because she had previously filed a notice of appeal. "[W]hether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and rule on [these] motion[s] [is a] matter[] of law that we review for correctness without deference to the trial court's rulings." State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 . ¶ 8 Johnson also appeals the trial court's decision to strike her ex

2009Comm'n, 2007 UT App 374, ¶ 12 , 173 P.3d 218 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 7 Johnson further claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide her motion for reconsideration or Appellees' motion to strike Johnson's photographs because she had previously filed a notice of appeal. "[W]hether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and rule on [these] motion[s] [is a] matter[] of law that we review for correctness without deference to the trial court's rulings." State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 . ¶ 8 Johnson also appeals the trial court's decision to strike her ex

2009Comm'n, 2007 UT App 374, ¶ 12 , 173 P.3d 218 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 7 Johnson further claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide her motion for reconsideration or Appellees' motion to strike Johnson's photographs because she had previously filed a notice of appeal. "[W]hether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and rule on [these] motion[s] [is a] matter[] of law that we review for correctness without deference to the trial court's rulings." State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 . ¶ 8 Johnson also appeals the trial court's decision to strike her ex

2009Comm'n, 2007 UT App 374, ¶ 12 , 173 P.3d 218 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 7 Johnson further claims that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide her motion for reconsideration or Appellees' motion to strike Johnson's photographs because she had previously filed a notice of appeal. "[W]hether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and rule on [these] motion[s] [is a] matter[] of law that we review for correctness without deference to the trial court's rulings." State v. Lovell, 2005 UT 31, ¶ 13 , 114 P.3d 575 . ¶ 8 Johnson also appeals the trial court's decision to strike her ex