ASC Utah, Inc. v. Wolf Mountain Resorts, L.C.
309 P.3d 201
Utah2013Background
- ASCU obtained a seven-week jury verdict awarding it $54,437,000 against Wolf Mountain in the Canyons Resort dispute.
- ASCU sought to collect via a Writ of Execution listing Wolf Mountain’s property; a sale proceeded.
- Wolf Mountain unsuccessfully moved to stay enforcement; the district court ordered sale of property to satisfy the judgment.
- At a public sale, ASCU purchased Wolf Mountain’s rights and interests in the litigation via a Certificate of Sale.
- The Certificate of Sale stated ASCU acquired all rights, title, claims and interests in the underlying litigation; Wolf Mountain argued this included appellate rights, which the court later distinguished.
- The court held that the term ‘claims’ did not encompass Wolf Mountain’s appellate rights, leaving the appeal potentially viable; it then addressed mootness and merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness: did ASCU acquire Wolf Mountain's appellate rights | Wolf Mountain | ASCU | No; appellate rights were not transferred |
| SPA Agreement 3.2.6 ambiguity impact | Wolf Mountain | ASCU | Ambiguity not resolved on record; issue inadequately briefed |
| Judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) standard | Wolf Mountain | ASCU | Denial of JNOV affirmed; there was substantial evidence supporting the verdict |
| Motion for a new trial and evidentiary rulings | Wolf Mountain | ASCU | District court did not abuse discretion; most evidentiary issues inadequately briefed |
| Remittitur denial following no new trial | Wolf Mountain | ASCU | Remittitur denial affirmed; no basis to order a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Child v. Gonda, 972 P.2d 425 (Utah 1998) (jury verdicts require substantial evidence to sustain)
- Braithwaite v. W. Valley City Corp., 921 P.2d 997 (Utah 1996) (standard for overturning a jury verdict on basis of evidence)
- Chen v. Stewart, 100 P.3d 1177 (Utah 2004) (marshalling evidence and appellate briefing requirements)
- Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789 (Utah 1991) (new trial standards and remittitur considerations)
- Wayment v. Howard, 144 P.3d 1147 (Utah 2006) (summary judgment review; appellate scope when not purely legal)