Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC
2012 UT 38
| Utah | 2012Background
- Gillmor appeals district court dismissal and Rule 11 sanctions decision; district court held public highway claims barred by claim preclusion.
- Prior litigation included 1984 private easement action by Frank Gillmor against Richards; settlement 1985 granted limited private easement over Perdue Creek Road and limited access over Neil Creek Road.
- 2001 suit against Maceys to interpret/enforce the Settlement; district court found a private easement and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- 2007 current suit asserts two public claims: (a) public condemnation under Utah Code for a public access easement and (b) highway-by-public-use due to ten years of use; alleges long history dating to the 19th century.
- District court granted claim-preclusion-based dismissal and sanctioned Gillmor’s attorney under Rule 11(b)(2); sanctions were later vacated on appeal; case proceeded to certiorari.
- Supreme Court grants review to determine whether res judicata bars Gillmor’s current claims and whether Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate; holds claims are not barred and sanctions vacated; remands for merits proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Gillmor's public highway claims barred by res judicata? | Gillmor argues claims arise from different facts and timeframes; not required to raise them earlier. | Claims could and should have been raised in 1984 or 2001 actions. | Not barred; res judicata does not preclude current public highway claims. |
| Were Rule 11 sanctions appropriate given the res judicata ruling? | Sanctions based on a now-undermined basis (res judicata). | Sanctions were warranted for filing without basis. | Sanctions vacated; Rule 11 sanctions not supported by the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Commerce, 2009 UT 47 (Utah 2009) (transactional test for claim preclusion; essential similarity of underlying facts)
- Schaer v. State ex rel. Utah Dept. of Transp., 657 P.2d 1337 (Utah 1983) (no claim preclusion where underlying facts differ across time periods)
- Edgell v. Canning, 1999 UT 21 (Utah 1999) (private easement standards; ten-year use v. twenty-year use)
- Utah Cnty. v. Butler, 2008 UT 12 (Utah 2008) (private rights not public use for highway-by-public-use analysis)
- Gillmor v. Family Link, LLC, 2010 UT App 2, 224 P.3d 741 (Utah App. 2010) (prior rulings on scope of easement and run with the land (contextual background))