Aequitas Enters., LLC v. Interstate Investment Group, LLC
2011 UT 82
| Utah | 2011Background
- Aequitas Enterprises, LLC and Interstate Investment Group, LLC contracted for the sale of 388 real estate properties located in 28 states outside Utah.
- Aequitas sued Interstate for breach of contract and sought a prejudgment writ of attachment to protect its interest in the properties.
- The district court granted the writ and vesting title to all properties in Aequitas, raising questions about extraterritorial reach.
- Interstate argued the court lacked authority to affect real property outside Utah and that the writ was inappropriate because the properties were outside the forum.
- The Utah Supreme Court held that Utah procedural rules do not authorize extraterritorial prejudgment writs of attachment and reversal/vacatur of the district court’s order.
- The decision discussed the distinction between in personam and in rem jurisdiction and the limits of the court to affect out-of-state property when it has personal jurisdiction over the parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a Utah court issue an extraterritorial prejudgment writ of attachment on property outside Utah when it has in personam jurisdiction over the parties? | Aequitas argued rules silence implies authorization for extraterritorial writs. | Interstate argued rules are silent on extraterritorial attachment, implying no authority. | No; Utah rules do not authorize extraterritorial writs of attachment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Employers Mutual of Wisconsin v. Montrose Steel Co., 559 P.2d 536 (Utah 1976) (in rem nature of attachment proceedings and jurisdiction limits when property is not within the forum)
- Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1 (U.S. (1909)) (discusses equity jurisdiction and effects on foreign property through personal jurisdiction)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (U.S. (1958)) (discusses jurisdiction analyses; distinction between in rem and in personam)
- Kowalewski v. Kowalewski, 182 P.3d 962 (Wash. 2008) (recognizes court may indirectly affect foreign realty via in personam decree)
- Groza-Vance v. Vance, 834 N.E.2d 24 (Ohio 2005) (distinguishes between direct conveyance of title and indirect effects through in personam orders)
- Pac. Decision Scis. Corp. v. Superior Court, 121 Cal.App.4th 1100 (Cal. App. 2004) (extraterritorial attachments considered under state procedures)
- In re Adoption of Baby E.Z. (J.M.W. v. T.I.Z.), 2011 UT 38, 266 P.3d 702 (Utah 2011) (procedural interpretations and jurisdictional considerations under Utah rules)