Gables & Villas at River Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Castlewood Builders, LLC, 422 P.3d 826

River Oaks project: 11 buildings; six relevant buildings completed by July 2007. Castlewood Builders was the general contractor; separate developer entities originally sued by the HOA.
The HOA discovered defects and sued the Developers; Developers filed third‑party claims against subcontractors but Castlewood Builders’ role was unknown until March 2012.
Developers moved for leave to amend their third‑party complaint to add Castlewood on May 2, 2012; the court granted that motion in December 2012 and the Developers assigned their claims to the HOA.
The HOA’s December 2012 amended complaint adding Castlewood was struck as procedurally improper; the HOA then moved for leave to amend in July 2013, was granted leave in March 2014, and filed a proper amended complaint on May 13, 2014.
Castlewood moved for summary judgment arguing the six‑year statute of repose (Utah Code §78B‑2‑225(3)(a)) barred the HOA’s claims; the district court denied summary judgment, finding relation back to May 2, 2012.
On interlocutory appeal, the Utah Supreme Court held the action was not commenced by the Developers’ motion for leave to amend and that the HOA’s claims were time‑barred because no timely complaint was filed and relation back was not available.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a motion for leave to amend commences an action for purposes of the statute of repose	Developers’ motion (May 2, 2012) commenced the action against Castlewood because it gave notice and should satisfy the repose period	Commencement requires filing a complaint under Utah R. Civ. P. 3; motions for leave do not commence an action	Motion for leave does not commence an action; action must be commenced by filing a complaint under Rule 3
Whether the 2014 amended complaint relates back to a timely pleading under Utah R. Civ. P. 15(c)	Relation back prevents repose bar because the claims arise from same conduct and Castlewood had notice	Relation back not established; Association conceded it could not satisfy Rule 15(c)	Relation back was not established (Association conceded); thus the 2014 complaint did not avoid repose

Nett v. Bellucci, 774 N.E.2d 130 (Mass. 2002) (motion for leave may give notice relevant to repose analysis in some jurisdictions)
Lawler v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., 51 N.E.3d 1053 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016) (preference to decide cases on merits over pleading technicalities)
Kane Cty., Utah v. United States, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (D. Utah 2013) (criticizing requirement to file a separate suit after assignment as inefficient)
Mayes v. AT&T Info. Sys., Inc., 867 F.2d 1172 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding amended complaint deemed filed within limitations if petition for leave was timely filed)