Andersen v. Andersen
361 P.3d 698
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Raylin Andersen appeals district court orders dismissing the original complaint and the First Amended Complaint, and an award of attorney fees to some defendants.
- The district court dismissed Andrea Drossos Andersen’s claim under Rule 12(b)(6) but allowed amendment and added parties (Raylin’s ex-husband Warren, his counsel, and the attorneys for Andrea).
- Raylin asserted procedural noncompliance, insufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law for dismissals, and inadequate findings for the bad-faith attorney-fee award.
- Raylin argued all issues were preserved by timely notice of appeal, and claimed the court should have treated the motions as summary-judgment motions.
- The court held issues not properly preserved were waived, Rule 52(a) findings were adequate for motions, and affirmatively upheld dismissal and the bad-faith award where properly supported.
- The court remanded to determine attorney fees on appeal for Andrea and clarified awards for other parties; it affirmed dismissal of the First Amended Complaint as to Raylin and upheld the appellate-rules-based fee decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of issues on appeal | Raylin preserved issues | Preservation was lacking | Not preserved; some claims abandoned or inadequately briefed |
| Findings under Rule 52(a) for dismissals | Rule 52(a) required detailed findings | Brief statements were adequate | Rule 52(a) not require detailed findings for motions; adequate here |
| First Amended Complaint — failure to state a claim | Amendments added claims against new parties | Claims failed to state a claim | Affirmed dismissal of the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim |
| Attorney-fee award under bad-faith statute | Findings insufficient to support §78B-5-825 award | Findings addressed statutory requirements | Affirmed award to Andrea; remanded as to fee amounts for others |
Key Cases Cited
- Wolferts v. Wolferts, 315 P.3d 448 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (preservation requires timely objection and opportunity to correct)
- Mercado v. Hill, 273 P.3d 385 (Utah App. 2012) (inadequate briefing can bar appellate review)
- Smith v. Four Corners Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 70 P.3d 904 (Utah 2003) (inadequate briefing undermines review)
- Allen v. Friel, 194 P.3d 903 (Utah 2008) (self-represented litigants not exempt from briefing requirements)
- Warner v. Warner, 319 P.3d 711 (Utah App. 2014) (prevailing-party fees on appeal under bad faith statute)