Commonwealth Property Advocates, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n
318 P.3d 770
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Commonwealth appeals a district court summary judgment favoring U.S. Bank; the district court had entered judgment after a procedural sequence involving two judges and a mistaken reassignment.
- Judges Barlow and Christiansen each addressed portions of the case; Christiansen recused after learning of Barlow's ruling and ordered docket corrections.
- Commonwealth argues that procedural irregularities and the lack of supplemental briefing undermined the validity of the summary judgment.
- Barlow ruled that Commonwealth lacked standing because it was not a party to the promissory note or deed of trust, and thus had no basis to challenge foreclosure missteps.
- Commonwealth did not challenge the standing ruling in its opening brief; it raised standing in a reply brief, and the court treats such late arguments as waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Commonwealth have standing to sue? | Commonwealth contends it can challenge the foreclosure despite not being a noteholder. | Barlow correctly held Commonwealth lacked standing as non-party to note/deed. | Standing issue affirmed; dismissal/summary judgment affirmed. |
| Was the procedural irregularity in multi-judge handling fatal to the judgment? | Procedural irregularities invalidated the ruling. | Irregularities are harmless error; briefing deficiencies noted but not fatal. | Harmless error; not fatal to judgment. |
| Was the standing challenge properly raised and preserved on appeal? | Standing issue should have been addressed earlier in opening brief. | Waived because not raised in opening brief and raised only in reply. | Waived; not considered on appeal. |
| Did the court need to treat the Rule 12(c) motion as summary judgment and allow Rule 56 briefing? | Not explicitly challenged; required at least opportunity for Rule 56 briefing. | Rule 12(c) treatment occurred; no objection raised; no further review. | Not addressed on appeal; harmless given outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Friel, 194 P.3d 908 (Utah, 2008 UT 56) (issues raised in reply brief waived unless raised in opening brief)
- Kemp v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 301 P.3d 23 (Utah App. 2013) (appellate standing can be addressed for the first time in the reply brief)
- Schefsk ex rel. Coleman v. Stevens, 17 P.3d 1122 (Utah, 2000) (inadequate briefing; court may not address unbriefed issues)
- Hebertson v. Willowcreek Plaza, 923 P.2d 1389 (Utah, 1996) (addressing procedural and briefing concerns in Utah appellate practice)
- Brown v. Glover, 16 P.3d 540 (Utah, 2000) (standing-related considerations in appellate procedure)