Dickman Family Properties, Inc. v. White
302 P.3d 833
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Whites appealed a district court ruling that third-party witness Mark Wright should not be held in contempt.
- Whites contended the contempt proceeding was criminal in nature, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not civil.
- District court held the proceeding criminal, and concluded there was insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Wright testified falsely.
- The district court dismissed the contempt proceeding after finding issues with Wright's Declaration and noting inconsistencies with his deposition.
- Whites sought attorney fees under Utah Code § 78B-6-311, arguing the proceeding was civil and should use a clear and convincing standard.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the issue was not preserved for appeal and that the district court acted within its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil or criminal contempt | Whites argued civil contempt governs due to their fee petition. | District court correctly treated as criminal contempt to protect court processes. | Not reached on merits; issue not preserved. |
| Preservation of the civil/criminal issue and burden of proof | Whites preserved the issue by raising the civil nature and appropriate standard. | Whites failed to preserve the issue for appeal. | Issue not preserved; affirmed without reaching merits. |
| Remand for correct standard if error found | If civil standard should apply, the matter should be remanded to apply clear and convincing standard. | No remand necessary given preservation failure; district court's decision stands. | Not reached; preservation failure forecloses merits-based remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shipman v. Evans, 2004 UT 44 (Utah 2004) (distinguishes civil vs criminal contempt by purpose of the order)
- Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1988) (principle that civil vs criminal is determined by purpose, not method)
- Willey v. Willey, 951 P.2d 226 (Utah 1997) (appellate deference in fact-intensive, weight-of-evidence decisions)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (preservation requirement for appellate review)