Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1935–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
NetDictation, LLC v. Ricegreen2 sentences2019The note states, “NetDictation . . . hereby irrevocably promises and agrees to pay to the order of [Rice] . . . the principal sum of Forty Eight Thousand Dollars ($48,000.00) (the Principal Sum), together with interest thereon (if any) and other fees in connection therewith.” The note then states that it is to be repaid “all in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below.” In addition to the Payment Provision, the $48,000 Note includes an acceleration clause that provides that in the event of NetDictation’s default, “the Holder may at its sole option consider the entire unpaid pri 2019See also Acceleration, Black’s Law Dictionary 14 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “acceleration” as “[t]he act or process of quickening or shortening the duration of something, such as (continued…) 20180334-CA 14 2019 UT App 198 NetDictation, LLC v. Rice we cannot readily conceive of a way in which to harmonize the note’s acceleration clause with NetDictation’s interpretation of the Payment Provision. | 1 | 1 |
Munford v. Lee Servicing Co.green2 sentences2019See Munford v. Lee Servicing Co., 2000 UT App 108, ¶ 18 , 999 P.2d 23 (“Provisions which are apparently conflicting are to be reconciled and harmonized, if possible, by reasonable interpretation so that the entire agreement can be given effect.”) (quotation simplified). ¶25 But the Payment Provision can be harmonized with the APSA and the other provisions of the $48,000 Note, thereby avoiding a conclusion of ambiguity. 2019See Munford v. Lee Servicing Co., 2000 UT App 108, ¶ 18 , 999 P.2d 23 (“Provisions which are apparently conflicting are to be reconciled and harmonized, if possible, by reasonable interpretation so that the entire agreement can be given effect.”) (quotation simplified). ¶25 But the Payment Provision can be harmonized with the APSA and the other provisions of the $48,000 Note, thereby avoiding a conclusion of ambiguity. | 1 | 1 |
KIXX, Inc. v. Stallion Music, Inc.green1 sentence1988ACCELERATION OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE Although an acceleration clause “will be enforced in accordance with the agreement of the parties,” KIXX, Inc. v. Stallion Music, Inc., 610 P.2d 1385, 1388 (Utah 1980), the remedy is a harsh one “not favored in the law.” Williamson v. Wanlass, 545 P.2d 1145, 1147 (Utah 1976). | 1 | 1 |
Williamson v. Wanlassgreen1 sentence1988ACCELERATION OF THE PROMISSORY NOTE Although an acceleration clause “will be enforced in accordance with the agreement of the parties,” KIXX, Inc. v. Stallion Music, Inc., 610 P.2d 1385, 1388 (Utah 1980), the remedy is a harsh one “not favored in the law.” Williamson v. Wanlass, 545 P.2d 1145, 1147 (Utah 1976). | 1 | 1 |
Bradford v. Alvey & Sonsgreen1 sentence1988In Bradford v. Alvey & Sons, 621 P.2d 1240, 1242 (Utah 1980), the Utah Supreme Court stated: “[W]hen a provision in a contract requires an act to be performed without specifying the time, the law implies that it is to be done within a reasonable time under the circumstances.” This rule has been applied in the context of acceleration clauses in mortgage instruments, including due-on-sale options: The prevailing rule is that under an ordinary acceleration clause in a mortgage or trust deed, the obligee has a reasonable time after the default or the event which gives rise to the right to accelera | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
C & J INDUSTRIES, INC. v. Bailey
green
2 sentences1982C & J Industries, Inc. v. Bailey, Utah, 618 P.2d 58 (1980). . 1982C & J Industries, Inc. v. Bailey, Utah, 618 P.2d 58 (1980). [6] Under the Partnership Agreement, any sale of an interest in the Partnership was, however, subject to a right of first refusal in the nonselling partner. [7] Nor is a seller justified in rejecting the offer submitted by the holder of the right of first refusal solely because it deviates from the third party's offer in some material way. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Wilson v. Grey
green
2 sentences1982Trolley also cites Wilson v. Grey, Ky., 560 S.W.2d 561 (1978), where the court found no sale in the transfer of a property interest from one of three lessors to another since no new party had been introduced as a lessor. .This construction accords with our construction of similar terms in an acceleration clause. 1982Trolley also cites Wilson v. Grey, Ky., 560 S.W.2d 561 (1978), where the court found no sale in the transfer of a property interest from one of three lessors to another since no new party had been introduced as a lessor. [5] This construction accords with our construction of similar terms in an acceleration clause. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Thomas v. Foulger
green
2 sentences1979At the outset it should be noted that the filing of a complaint for the unpaid balance of an installment note is a sufficient declaration by the payee for purposes of enforcing an acceleration clause of the kind under consideration, Thomas v. Foulger, 71 Utah 274 , 264 P. 975 (1928), Annotation at 5 A.L.R.2d 981 , § 7. 1979At the outset it should be noted that the filing of a complaint for the unpaid balance of an installment note is a sufficient declaration by the payee for purposes of enforcing an acceleration clause of the kind under consideration, Thomas v. Foulger, 71 Utah 274 , 264 P. 975 (1928), Annotation at 5 A.L.R.2d 981 , § 7. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Bisno v. Sax
green
2 sentences1964Home Owners Loan Corporation v. Washington, supra; Bisno, et al. v. Sax, et al., 175 Cal.App.2d 714 , 346 P.2d 814 (1959) ; Murphy v. Fox, et al. 1964Home Owners Loan Corporation v. Washington, supra; Bisno, et al. v. Sax, et al., 175 Cal.App.2d 714 , 346 P.2d 814 (1959) ; Murphy v. Fox, et al. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Jensen v. Lichtenstein
green
2 sentences1935Jensen v. Lichtenstein, 45 Utah 320 , 145 P. 1036 . 1935Jensen v. Lichtenstein, 45 Utah 320 , 145 P. 1036 . | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.