Utah Code
Utah Code § 78B-6-1304 (2026)
Motions related to a notice of pendency of an action
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any time after a notice has been filed pursuant to Section 78B-6-1303, any of the following may make a motion to the court in which the action is pending to release the notice:
a party to the action; or
a person with an interest in the real property affected by the notice, including a prospective purchaser with an executed purchase contract.
A court shall order notice of pendency of action released if:
the court receives a motion to release under Subsection (1); and
after a notice and hearing if determined to be necessary by the court, the court finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the validity of the real property claim that is the subject of the notice.
In deciding a motion under Subsection (2), if the underlying action for which a notice of pendency of action is filed is an action for specific performance, a court shall order a notice released if:
the court finds that the party filing the action has failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for the transaction under which the claim is asserted relating to the real property; or
the court finds that the elements necessary to require specific performance have not been established by a preponderance of the evidence.
If a court releases a claimant's notice pursuant to this section, that claimant may not record another notice with respect to the same property without an order from the court in which the action is pending that authorizes the recording of a new notice of pendency.
Upon a motion by any person with an interest in the real property that is the subject of a notice of pendency, a court may, at any time after the notice has been recorded, require, as a condition of maintaining the notice, that the claimant provide security to the moving party in the amount and form directed by the court, regardless of whether the court has received an application to release under Subsection (1).
A person who receives security under Subsection (5) may recover from the surety an amount not to exceed the amount of the security upon a showing that:
the claimant did not prevail on the real property claim; and
the person receiving the security suffered damages as a result of the maintenance of the notice.
The amount of security required by the court under Subsection (5) does not establish or limit the amount of damages or reasonable attorney fees and costs that may be awarded to a party who is found to have been damaged by a wrongfully filed notice of pendency.
A court shall award costs and attorney fees to a prevailing party on any motion under this section unless the court finds that:
the nonprevailing party acted with substantial justification; or
other circumstances make the imposition of attorney fees and costs unjust.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: Peterson v. Pierce, 2019 UT App 48 (Utah Ct. App. 2019).
Peterson v. Pierce, 2019 UT App 48 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “On September 5, 2014, the Pierces filed a motion to release the lis pendens and requested attorney fees pursuant to section 78B-6-1304. Peterson filed an opposition, in which she requested attorney fees pursuant to the same section of the Utah Code.”
Bank of the W. v. Whitney, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (D. Utah 2018). “Thus, the court concludes that alter ego or resulting trust claims in an action seeking to collect on a money judgment do not "affect[ ] the title to, or the right of possession of, real property" such that recording a notice of lis pendens is valid pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §…”
Meritage Companies LLC v. Gross, 2017 UT App 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Meritage cannot subvert the statutory directive of section 78B-6-1304 merely by recasting the Motion as a request for injunctive relief.”
North Park Holdings v. Duke Rental, 2025 UT App 42 (Utah Ct. App. 2025). “” Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(1). The court “shall order” the notice released if it “finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the validity of the real property 20230989-CA 10 2025 UT App 42 North Park Holdings v.”
Walker v. Zeus Land Holdings, 2021 UT App 9 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-1304(2)(b) (LexisNexis 2018).”
Regal Realsource v. Enlaw, 2024 UT App 95 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “§ 78B-6-1304(2)(b). It made sense, then, for the district court to order the lis pendens removed once it had ruled that the REPC was unenforceable and that Regal would therefore be unable to obtain title to or possession of the Property.”
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ascent Constr. (D. Utah 2025). “On September 28, 2023, the court granted Zurich’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its breach of express contract and specific performance claims against Ascent, Knowlton, and Swenson and dismissed the remaining claims and counterclaims.”
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ascent Constr. (D. Utah 2021). “47 Even assuming, without deciding, that Zurich has a valid equitable unjust enrichment claim, there are no nonconclusory allegations that funds made available under the agreements resulted in Swenson’s equity in the Property.”
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ascent Constr. (D. Utah 2021). “25 Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-1304(8). 26 See generally id.”
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ascent Constr. (D. Utah 2021). “The court awarded costs and fees as required by Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-1304(8). See ECF No.”
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ascent Constr. (D. Utah 2021). “The court DENIES Movants’ request for damages resulting from the recorded notices.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(1) — 3 cases
Meritage Companies LLC v. Gross, 2017 UT App 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Meritage cannot subvert the statutory directive of section 78B-6-1304 merely by recasting the Motion as a request for injunctive relief.”
North Park Holdings v. Duke Rental, 2025 UT App 42 (Utah Ct. App. 2025). “” Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(1). The court “shall order” the notice released if it “finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the validity of the real property 20230989-CA 10 2025 UT App 42 North Park Holdings v.”
Peterson v. Pierce, 2019 UT App 48 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “On September 5, 2014, the Pierces filed a motion to release the lis pendens and requested attorney fees pursuant to section 78B-6-1304. Peterson filed an opposition, in which she requested attorney fees pursuant to the same section of the Utah Code.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(2) — 2 cases
Peterson v. Pierce, 2019 UT App 48 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “On September 5, 2014, the Pierces filed a motion to release the lis pendens and requested attorney fees pursuant to section 78B-6-1304. Peterson filed an opposition, in which she requested attorney fees pursuant to the same section of the Utah Code.”
North Park Holdings v. Duke Rental, 2025 UT App 42 (Utah Ct. App. 2025). “” Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(1). The court “shall order” the notice released if it “finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the validity of the real property 20230989-CA 10 2025 UT App 42 North Park Holdings v.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(2)(b) — 3 cases
Bank of the W. v. Whitney, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (D. Utah 2018). “Thus, the court concludes that alter ego or resulting trust claims in an action seeking to collect on a money judgment do not "affect[ ] the title to, or the right of possession of, real property" such that recording a notice of lis pendens is valid pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §…”
Walker v. Zeus Land Holdings, 2021 UT App 9 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-1304(2)(b) (LexisNexis 2018).”
Regal Realsource v. Enlaw, 2024 UT App 95 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “§ 78B-6-1304(2)(b). It made sense, then, for the district court to order the lis pendens removed once it had ruled that the REPC was unenforceable and that Regal would therefore be unable to obtain title to or possession of the Property.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(4) — 3 cases
Bank of the W. v. Whitney, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (D. Utah 2018). “Thus, the court concludes that alter ego or resulting trust claims in an action seeking to collect on a money judgment do not "affect[ ] the title to, or the right of possession of, real property" such that recording a notice of lis pendens is valid pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §…”
Meritage Companies LLC v. Gross, 2017 UT App 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Meritage cannot subvert the statutory directive of section 78B-6-1304 merely by recasting the Motion as a request for injunctive relief.”
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ascent Constr. (D. Utah 2025). “On September 28, 2023, the court granted Zurich’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its breach of express contract and specific performance claims against Ascent, Knowlton, and Swenson and dismissed the remaining claims and counterclaims.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(6) — 1 case
Peterson v. Pierce, 2019 UT App 48 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “On September 5, 2014, the Pierces filed a motion to release the lis pendens and requested attorney fees pursuant to section 78B-6-1304. Peterson filed an opposition, in which she requested attorney fees pursuant to the same section of the Utah Code.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(8) — 7 cases
Bank of the W. v. Whitney, 301 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (D. Utah 2018). “Thus, the court concludes that alter ego or resulting trust claims in an action seeking to collect on a money judgment do not "affect[ ] the title to, or the right of possession of, real property" such that recording a notice of lis pendens is valid pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §…”
North Park Holdings v. Duke Rental, 2025 UT App 42 (Utah Ct. App. 2025). “” Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(1). The court “shall order” the notice released if it “finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the validity of the real property 20230989-CA 10 2025 UT App 42 North Park Holdings v.”
Peterson v. Pierce, 2019 UT App 48 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “On September 5, 2014, the Pierces filed a motion to release the lis pendens and requested attorney fees pursuant to section 78B-6-1304. Peterson filed an opposition, in which she requested attorney fees pursuant to the same section of the Utah Code.”
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ascent Constr. (D. Utah 2021). “47 Even assuming, without deciding, that Zurich has a valid equitable unjust enrichment claim, there are no nonconclusory allegations that funds made available under the agreements resulted in Swenson’s equity in the Property.”
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ascent Constr. (D. Utah 2021). “25 Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-1304(8). 26 See generally id.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-1304(l) — 1 case
Meritage Companies LLC v. Gross, 2017 UT App 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Meritage cannot subvert the statutory directive of section 78B-6-1304 merely by recasting the Motion as a request for injunctive relief.”
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.