Clark Properties, Inc. v. JDW-CM, LLC
282 P.3d 1009
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Clark Properties, Inc. and Deer Run at Maple Hills, LLC (Clark) challenge a trial court quiet-title ruling in favor of JDW‑CM, LLC on Lot 307 and appeal the denial of their new-trial motion.
- The bench trial proceeded with the court interpreting a foreclosure and redemption agreement (FRA) and the one‑action rule as dispositive, resolving remaining claims largely on pretrial submissions.
- Clark claimed lack of due process: no evidence was received, the court relied on submissions rather than permissible evidence, and Clark was discouraged from presenting evidence.
- Clark acquiesced in the court’s stated procedure and its interpretation of the FRA and one‑action rule, contributing to the decision to decide as a matter of law without additional evidence.
- The court concluded Clark waived objections by not timely objecting or proffering evidence and held the trial court did not err in ruling without hearing further evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by ruling on contract/one‑action issues without receiving further evidence. | Clark contends there was no evidence or opportunity to present it. | JDW maintained the court could decide as a matter of law based on the FRA and procedures. | No error; Clark acquiesced and waived the evidentiary challenge. |
| Whether Clark preserved a due-process challenge to the trial procedure. | Clark's due‑process claim was raised as a basis for reversal. | Clark acquiesced; no preserved error. | Issue unpreserved; no reversible error found. |
| Whether the court violated Utah Code section 78B‑6‑1315(3) by not hearing evidence. | Statutory requirement to hear evidence in quiet-title actions. | Statute limited to default judgments against unknown defendants; not applicable here. | Statute not violated; quiet-title may be resolved without mandatory hearing in this context. |
| Whether Clark preserved error regarding lack of evidence or need for a new trial. | Clark argues due-process/waiver issues warrant a new trial. | Clark failed to preserve issues; acquiescence forecloses new-trial relief. | No preservation; no plain-error or exceptional circumstances shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tretheway v. Furstenau, 40 P.3d 649 (Utah 2001) (contract interpretation as a matter of law when unambiguous)
- Willard Pease Oil & Gas Co. v. Pioneer Oil & Gas Co., 899 P.2d 766 (Utah 1995) (parol evidence to explain contract intent when ambiguous)
- Smith v. Fairfax Realty, Inc., 82 P.3d 1064 (Utah 2003) (abuse of discretion standard for new-trial motions)
- Wilson v. Valley Mental Health, 969 P.2d 416 (Utah 1998) (contract/statutory interpretation principles)
- State v. Pinder, 114 P.3d 551 (Utah 2005) (preservation requirements for appellate review)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain-error standard for unpreserved issues)