Dantine v. Shores
266 P.3d 188
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Darlene Joy Dantine and Gerald Patterson appeal district court orders granting summary judgment for Shoreses, contempt finding against Dantine, and attorney fees/costs as sanctions.
- Shoreses served separate Rule 36 requests for admission; Patterson and Dantine did not respond for over six months, making admissions by failure to respond.
- District court deemed admitted facts conclusive and granted summary judgment and fee awards based on those admissions, without setting aside the admissions.
- District court held Dantine in contempt for representing Patterson without authority; she admitted she was not a licensed attorney, distinguishing contempt from failure to appear.
- Dantine later moved to set aside the judgments; district court denied for lack of legal/factual basis; on appeal, such basis is not demonstrated.
- On appeal, the court awards Shoreses appellate attorney fees against Dantine only and remands for amount of appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of admissions by failure to respond | Dantine and Patterson admitted facts via Rule 36. | Admissions bind the facts; no genuine issues remain. | Admissions establish no material disputes; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Contempt for unauthorized representation | Dantine acted as counsel without authority; contempt proper. | Contempt not properly triggered by appearance alone. | Dantine properly held in contempt for unauthorized representation. |
| Motion to set aside judgments | No basis for setting aside; timely error not shown. | Procedural defects justify relief. | denial of setting aside affirmed; no basis shown to reverse. |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Prevailing party entitled to appellate fees; award against Dantine only. | Patterson should share in appellate fees. | Fees on appeal awarded against Dantine only; remanded for amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Langeland v. Monarch Motors, Inc., 952 P.2d 1058 (Utah 1998) (once admitted, withdrawing requires conditions and showing of merits)
- Barnes v. Clarkson, 178 P.3d 930 (Utah App. 2008) (trial court cannot unilaterally disregard admissions)
- State v. Mead, 27 P.3d 1115 (Utah 2001) (presumption of correctness for district court ruling when lacking record)