466 P.3d 171
Utah2020Background
- Cougar Canyon obtained a $4 million judgment against Cypress and sought to collect on it.
- Cypress sued its former lawyers (Jones Waldo) for legal malpractice, believing the judgment resulted from that malpractice.
- Each Cypress party assigned 99% of its malpractice claim to JWHM Claims, leaving a 1% residual interest.
- Cougar Canyon applied for writs of execution to seize Cypress’s malpractice causes of action to satisfy its judgment; the district court allowed execution, limiting recovery to each party’s remaining 1% interest.
- Cypress moved to quash the writs arguing public policy barred execution on the malpractice claims; the district court denied the motion and Cypress appealed.
- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding rules 64 and 64E permit execution on causes of action and declining to create a new public-policy exception; it also declined to decide whether denial of a motion to quash is a final appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a creditor execute on a debtor's legal malpractice claim? | Public policy: creditor who benefited from malpractice should be barred from foreclosing that malpractice claim (avoid double windfall; ensure proper valuation; fair trial). | Utah R. Civ. P. 64/64E and precedent treat causes of action, including malpractice claims, as property subject to execution. | Affirmed: execution permitted; public-policy concerns do not override plain rule language; change must come through rulemaking. |
| Is denial of a motion to quash a writ of execution a final, appealable order? | Denial is final because it disposes of the controversy over that subject matter. | (Respondent argued on procedural grounds; parties agreed Supreme Court had jurisdiction via interlocutory review.) | Not decided: Court declined to resolve the jurisdictional question as unnecessary and without adversarial briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snow, Nuffer, Engstrom & Drake v. Tanasse, 980 P.2d 208 (Utah 1999) (held causes of action amenable to execution and barred lawyers from purchasing malpractice claims against their own clients under court’s authority to regulate the practice of law)
- Eagle Mountain City v. Parsons Kinghorn & Harris, P.C., 408 P.3d 322 (Utah 2017) (rejected a categorical prohibition on voluntary assignment of malpractice claims; interpretability governed by rule language)
- St. Jeor v. Kerr Corp., 353 P.3d 137 (Utah 2015) (courts must adhere to plain language of procedural rules and not rewrite them on appeal)
- Lamoreaux v. Black Diamond Holdings, LLC, 296 P.3d 780 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (confirms choses in action remain amenable to execution under Utah rules)