Berg v. Berg, 278 P.3d 1071

David Berg appeals a judgment ordering him to pay Amie Berg $7,127 in a case involving an unlawful detainer and disputes over furnishings and an Infiniti SUV.
The trial court found Amie unlawfully detained the premises and took furnishings, but offset Amie’s ownership interest against damages owed by Amie to David.
The court treated Amie’s ownership claim as a counterclaim and offset it against damages, resulting in a net award to Amie.
David’s defenses included arguing the pleadings were not amended to conform to evidence and that Amie’s counterclaim was improvidently added, and he challenged res judicata as a bar.
Rule 15(b) allows issues tried by implied consent to be treated as if raised in the pleadings, which the court applied to Amie’s claim.
The appeal challenges the trial court’s use of Rule 15(b) and the redesignation of a defense as a counterclaim, as well as preservation issues for res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly conformed pleadings to the evidence.	Berg says pleadings were not properly conformed.	Amie’s claim was sufficiently connected to the subject property and consequential damages.	No abuse; issues tried with implied consent under Rule 15(b).
Whether the court abused its discretion in redesignating a defense as a counterclaim.	Berg argues improper sua sponte redesignation.	Redesignation was discretionary and supported by notice and pleading content.	Not an abuse of discretion.
Whether res judicata barred Amie’s interest claim.	Berg contends res judicata applies.	Issue not properly preserved for appeal; record lacks specifics.	Not addressed; issue not preserved for review.
Whether Amie’s claim was adequately pleaded under Rule 8(a).	Pleadings failed to state a claim.	Pleadings gave notice of the claim and allowed proof at trial.	Adequate notice; claim pleaded sufficient under liberal notice pleading.

Guss v. Cheryl, Inc., 240 P.3d 1142 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (rule 15(b) fair opportunity to defend; consent to try issue)
Keller v. Southwood N. Med. Pavilion, Inc., 959 P.2d 102 (Utah 1998) (trial court’s determination under rule 15(b) reviewed for correctness with deference)
Hill v. Estate of Allred, 216 P.3d 929 (Utah 2009) (implied consent to try unpleaded issues; objective standard)
Berkshires, LLC v. Sykes, 127 P.3d 1243 (Utah App. 2005) (reassignment of defense as counterclaim; factors for abuse review)
Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 70 P.3d 35 (Utah 2003) (treating issue raised at trial as if pleaded)
Lee v. Sanders, 55 P.3d 1127 (Utah App. 2002) (issues tried inadvertently; limitations on application)
Jones v. Salt Lake City Corp., 78 P.3d 988 (Utah App. 2003) (conversion defined; notice pleading context)
Fisher v. Davidhizar, 263 P.3d 440 (Utah App. 2011) (notice pleading standard; liberal requirements)
Gudmundson v. Del Ozone, 232 P.3d 1059 (Utah 2010) (liberal notice pleading requirements)