Utah Code

Utah Code § 61-1-22 (2026)

Sales and purchases in violation -- Remedies -- Limitation of actions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This Subsection (1) applies to a person who:

offers or sells a security in violation of:

Subsection 61-1-3(1);

Section 61-1-7;

Subsection 61-1-17(2);

a rule or order under Section 61-1-15, which requires the affirmative approval of sales literature before it is used; or

a condition imposed under Subsection 61-1-10(4) or 61-1-11(7); or

offers, sells, or purchases a security in violation of Subsection 61-1-1(2).

A person described in Subsection (1)(a) is liable to a person selling the security to or buying the security from the person described in Subsection (1)(a). The person to whom the person described in Subsection (1)(a) is liable may sue either at law or in equity to recover the consideration paid for the security, together with interest at 12% per year from the date of payment, costs, and reasonable attorney fees, less the amount of income received on the security, upon the tender of the security or for damages if the person no longer owns the security.

Damages are an amount calculated as follows:

subtract from the amount that would be recoverable upon a tender under Subsection (1)(b), excluding interest, the value of the security when the buyer disposed of the security; and

add to the amount calculated under Subsection (1)(c)(i) interest at:

12% per year:

beginning the day on which the security is purchased by the buyer; and

ending on the date of disposition; and

after the period described in Subsection (1)(c)(ii)(A), 12% per year on the amount lost at disposition.

The court in a suit brought under Subsection (1) may award an amount equal to three times the consideration paid for the security, together with interest, costs, and attorney fees, less any amounts, all as specified in Subsection (1) upon a showing that:

the violation was reckless or intentional; or

the violation was of Subsection 61-1-1(2), was negligent, and it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the violation involved an investment by a person over whom the violator exercised undue influence.

A person who offers or sells a security in violation of Subsection 61-1-1(2) is not liable under Subsection (1)(a) if the purchaser knew of the untruth or omission, or the seller did not know and in the exercise of reasonable care could not have known of the untrue statement or misleading omission.

Every person who directly or indirectly controls a seller or buyer liable under Subsection (1), every partner, officer, or director of such a seller or buyer, every person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions, every employee of such a seller or buyer who materially aids in the sale or purchase, and every broker-dealer or agent who materially aids in the sale or purchase are also liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as the seller or purchaser, unless the nonseller or nonpurchaser who is so liable sustains the burden of proof that the nonseller or nonpurchaser did not know, and in exercise of reasonable care could not have known, of the existence of the facts by reason of which the liability is alleged to exist.

There is contribution as in cases of contract among the several persons so liable.

A tender specified in this section may be made at any time before entry of judgment.

A cause of action under this section survives the death of a person who might have been a plaintiff or defendant.

An action may not be maintained to enforce liability under this section unless brought before the earlier of:

the expiration of five years after the act or transaction constituting the violation; or

the expiration of two years after the discovery by the plaintiff of the facts constituting the violation.

A person may not sue under this section if:

the buyer or seller received a written offer, before suit and at a time when the buyer or seller owned the security, to refund the consideration paid together with interest at 12% per year from the date of payment, less the amount of any income received on the security, and the buyer or seller failed to accept the offer within 30 days of its receipt; or

the buyer or seller received such an offer before suit and at a time when the buyer or seller did not own the security, unless the buyer or seller rejected the offer in writing within 30 days of its receipt.

A person who has made or engaged in the performance of any contract in violation of this chapter or any rule or order issued under this chapter, or who has acquired a purported right under any such contract with knowledge of the facts by reason of which its making or performance was in violation, may not base a suit on the contract.

A condition, stipulation, or provision binding a person acquiring a security to waive compliance with this chapter or a rule or order issued under this chapter is void.

The rights and remedies provided by this chapter are in addition to any other rights or remedies that may exist at law or in equity.

This chapter does not create a cause of action not specified in this section or Subsection 61-1-4(6).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Gohler v. Wood, 919 P.2d 561 (Utah 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gohler v. Wood, 919 P.2d 561 (Utah 1996). · cites it 128× “Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (1), (3). [2] The terms of these provisions contain no requirement that a plaintiff prove reliance to recover.”

Steenblik v. Lichfield, 906 P.2d 872 (Utah 1995). · cites it 22× “1 The jury also found that the damages were the proximate result of Lichfield’s “reckless or intentional” violations of the Act, which entitled plaintiff to treble damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (2). In addition, the jury found…”

MFS Series Trust III Ex Rel. MFS Mun. High Income Fund v. Grainger, 2004 UT 61 (Utah 2004). · cites it 14× “PERSONAL JURISDICTION ¶ 8 Plaintiffs argue that Utah’s securities statute, Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (4) (1997 & Supp.”

Burdick v. Horner Townsend & Kent, Inc., 2015 UT 8 (Utah 2015). · cites it 8× “Plaintiffs were entitled to pursue attorney fees under Utah Code section 61-1-22(1)(b), which allows a purchaser of a security to seek "reasonable attorney fees" if the seller of the security violates securities laws.”

Doit, Inc. v. Touche, Ross & Co., 926 P.2d 835 (Utah 1996). · cites it 8× “" Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (7)(a). The trial court reasoned that plaintiffs' various causes of action "accrued at the latest on July 31, 1986, when the DFI seized the thrifts and the ILGC and the depositors were notified that they no longer had free access to their deposits.”

Legacy Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc., 322 P.3d 683 (Utah 2013). · cites it 34× “First, section 61-1-22 prescribes a series of specified defenses — none of which encompass any of the equitable considerations put forward by Legacy.”

Cougar Canyon Loan, LLC v. Cypress Fund, LLC, 2019 UT App 47 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “See Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (7)(a)(ii) (LexisNexis 2018) (providing that a claim brought under the Utah Uniform Securities Act is barred after "the expiration of two years after the discovery by the plaintiff of the facts constituting the violation").”

Jeppsen v. Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 1130 (D. Utah 1995). · cites it 8× “Respondents contend that the arbitrators had no authority to grant attorneys fees and costs because the only private right to recover under Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 for securities fraud is for misrepresentation or omission of material fact in connection with the purchase or sale…”

Miller v. Weaver, 2003 UT 12 (Utah 2003). “"); Utah Uniform Securities Act, § 61-1-22 (2000) ("A person who offers or sells a security in violation of [enumerated statutes] .”

Home Sav. & Loan v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 817 P.2d 341 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “The Armitage verdict against Home was based on a finding that Home had been a seller of securities for the purpose of proving violations of section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and of section 61-1-22(1)(a) of the Utah Uniform Securities Act, Utah Code Ann.”

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,959 Frank Lanza, Jr. v. Drexel & Co., Theodore J. Kircher & Christie F. Vitolo, 479 F.2d 1277 (2d Cir. 1973). “Code § 62-310 (1962); Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (2) (1968); Va.Code § 13.”

Dahl v. Gardner, 583 F. Supp. 1262 (D. Utah 1984). · cites it 2× “Code §§ 25401, 25501; Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (l)(b) (Supp.1983).”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(1) — 5 cases

Gohler v. Wood, 919 P.2d 561 (Utah 1996). “Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (1), (3). [2] The terms of these provisions contain no requirement that a plaintiff prove reliance to recover.”

S & F Supply Co. v. Hunter, 527 P.2d 217 (Utah 1974).

Valley Bank of Nevada v. Foster & Marshall, Inc., 585 F. Supp. 1351 (D. Utah 1984).

Sensoria, LLC v. Kaweske (D. Colo. 2022).

Levitz v. Warrington, 877 P.2d 1245 (Utah Ct. App. 1994).

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(1)(a) — 4 cases

Gohler v. Wood, 919 P.2d 561 (Utah 1996). “Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (1), (3). [2] The terms of these provisions contain no requirement that a plaintiff prove reliance to recover.”

Home Sav. & Loan v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 817 P.2d 341 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). “The Armitage verdict against Home was based on a finding that Home had been a seller of securities for the purpose of proving violations of section 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and of section 61-1-22(1)(a) of the Utah Uniform Securities Act, Utah Code Ann.”

Stehrenberger (Bankr. D. Idaho 2026).

Levitz v. Warrington, 877 P.2d 1245 (Utah Ct. App. 1994).

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(1)(b) — 4 cases

Burdick v. Horner Townsend & Kent, Inc., 2015 UT 8 (Utah 2015). “Plaintiffs were entitled to pursue attorney fees under Utah Code section 61-1-22(1)(b), which allows a purchaser of a security to seek "reasonable attorney fees" if the seller of the security violates securities laws.”

Abu-Ulba v. Ananda Sci., 2024 UT App 64 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).

Zamora v. Quezada (D. Utah 2024).

Stehrenberger (Bankr. D. Idaho 2026).

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(10) — 1 case

Legacy Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc., 322 P.3d 683 (Utah 2013). “First, section 61-1-22 prescribes a series of specified defenses — none of which encompass any of the equitable considerations put forward by Legacy.”

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(2) — 5 cases

Steenblik v. Lichfield, 906 P.2d 872 (Utah 1995). “1 The jury also found that the damages were the proximate result of Lichfield’s “reckless or intentional” violations of the Act, which entitled plaintiff to treble damages, reasonable attorney fees, and costs pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (2). In addition, the jury found…”

In Re WICAT Sec. Litig., 671 F. Supp. 726 (D. Utah 1987).

Abu-Ulba v. Ananda Sci., 2024 UT App 64 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).

Sensoria, LLC v. Kaweske (D. Colo. 2022).

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(2)(a) — 1 case

Sensoria, LLC v. Kaweske (D. Colo. 2022).

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(3) — 3 cases

Gohler v. Wood, 919 P.2d 561 (Utah 1996). “Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (1), (3). [2] The terms of these provisions contain no requirement that a plaintiff prove reliance to recover.”

Stehrenberger (Bankr. D. Idaho 2026).

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(4) — 1 case

MFS Series Trust III Ex Rel. MFS Mun. High Income Fund v. Grainger, 2004 UT 61 (Utah 2004). “PERSONAL JURISDICTION ¶ 8 Plaintiffs argue that Utah’s securities statute, Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (4) (1997 & Supp.”

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(4)(a) — 3 cases

Gohler v. Wood, 919 P.2d 561 (Utah 1996). “Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-22 (1), (3). [2] The terms of these provisions contain no requirement that a plaintiff prove reliance to recover.”

Levitz v. Warrington, 877 P.2d 1245 (Utah Ct. App. 1994).

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(5) — 3 cases

Alta Health Strategies, Inc. v. Kennedy, 790 F. Supp. 1085 (D. Utah 1992).

Brown v. Producers Livestock Loan Co., 469 F. Supp. 27 (D. Utah 1978).

Valley Bank of Nevada v. Foster & Marshall, Inc., 585 F. Supp. 1351 (D. Utah 1984).

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(8) — 1 case

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(9) — 1 case

— Utah Code § 61-1-22(l)(b) — 1 case

State v. Bird, 2017 UT App 147 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.