Federated Capital Corporation v. Abraham
2018 UT App 117
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Federated Capital (Michigan corp.) sued Arnella Abraham (Texas resident) in Utah (Aug 2011) for unpaid credit-card debt arising from performance due in Pennsylvania; contract contained Utah choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses and an attorney-fee provision.
- Abraham answered generally asserting as an affirmative defense that the action “fails because of the statute of limitations.”
- Abraham moved for summary judgment arguing Utah’s borrowing statute required application of Pennsylvania’s 4-year breach-of-contract statute, which barred Federated’s claim; she also sought reciprocal attorney fees under Utah law.
- Federated opposed on the merits, arguing the contract’s forum-selection/choice-of-law clauses made Pennsylvania’s statute irrelevant; Federated did not object that Abraham’s answer lacked specificity under Utah R. Civ. P. 9(i) or raise preservation arguments.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Abraham, applied the borrowing statute, and awarded attorney fees; Federated appealed only raising the argument that Abraham’s statute-of-limitations defense was inadequately pleaded (i.e., unpreserved issue).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Federated) | Defendant's Argument (Abraham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Abraham forfeited her statute-of-limitations defense by failing to specifically plead the statute (preservation/Rule 9(i)) | Abraham lost the defense because her answer failed to identify the statute by section number as required; district court plainly erred in allowing the defense | Abraham’s general affirmative defense was sufficient under Rule 9(i) when supplemented by her summary-judgment memorandum; Federated waived any objection by litigating the defense on the merits | Federated waived the challenge by not preserving it in district court; appellate review barred (no plain-error relief) |
| Whether prevailing party (Abraham) is entitled to appellate attorney fees under Utah’s reciprocal-fee statute | (Implicit) Federated opposed fees | Abraham prevailed and seeks fees incurred on appeal under the reciprocal-fee statute because the contract authorized fees to at least one party | Court awards Abraham reasonable attorney fees on appeal and remands to district court to quantify them |
Key Cases Cited
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (failure to raise trial issues generally results in waiver)
- State v. Rettig, 416 P.3d 520 (Utah 2017) (Rule 12(h) waiver is jurisdictional and forecloses appellate review)
- Smith v. Grand Canyon Expeditions Co., 84 P.3d 1154 (Utah 2003) (pleadings need only give notice and opportunity to respond)
- Golding v. Ashley Central Irrigation Co., 793 P.2d 897 (Utah 1990) (defective pleading of affirmative defense can be waived if opposing party fails to object and litigates the issue)
- Federated Capital Corp. v. Haner, 351 P.3d 816 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (prevailing party entitled to appellate fees when contract allows fee recovery)
- Tschaggeny v. Milbank Ins. Co., 163 P.3d 615 (Utah 2007) (preservation requirement prevents strategic withholding of issues at trial)