GOLDEN MEADOWS PROPERTIES, LC v. Strand, 268 P.3d 849

This appeal challenges district court rulings denying the motion to set aside an execution sale from 2008 and denying a subsequent Rule 59 motion for a new trial.
The execution sale occurred November 24, 2008, concerning property owned by Golden Meadows Properties, LC and contested with Strand and Allen.
District court held there was no gross inadequacy in bid price and no substantive irregularities that would prevent realizing a fair price, so the sale was not set aside.
After the sale ruling, Appellants sought a new trial under Rule 59, which the district court also denied.
This court reviews the denial of a Rule 59 motion for abuse of discretion and defers to the district court’s discretionary rulings without required findings of fact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sale should be set aside for gross price inadequacy or irregularities.	Strand/Allen contend price was grossly inadequate and irregularities affected price.	No evidence of gross inadequacy; irregularities were not substantive.	No error; sale not set aside.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 59 motions for a new trial.	Decision is overly broad, lacks findings, and should have had an evidentiary hearing.	Discretionary rulings without required findings are proper; no abuse; no hearing needed.	No abuse of discretion; Rule 59 denial affirmed.

Bangerter v. Petty, 228 P.3d 1250 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (inadequate price and irregularities bearing on fair price support setting aside sale)
Moon Lake Elec. Ass'n v. Ultrasystems W. Constructors, 767 P.2d 125 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (Rule 59 new-trial discretionary standard)
Christenson v. Jewkes, 761 P.2d 1375 (Utah 1988) (standard for reviewing trial court discretion)
PDQ Lube Ctr., Inc. v. Huber, 949 P.2d 792 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (abuse of discretion in denying evidentiary hearing)