GOLDEN MEADOWS PROPERTIES, LC v. Strand
249 P.3d 596
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Golden Meadows Properties, LC sued Strand and Allen for unlawful detainer in August 2007.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Golden Meadows on July 15, 2008, which this court affirmed on appeal.
- Strand and Allen moved to disqualify Judge Dawson under rule 63 and moved for relief from judgment under rule 60(b) based on alleged bias.
- Judge Dawson certified the disqualification motion to Judge Kay, who denied it as untimely/without merit, and denied the rule 60(b) motion on the merits.
- Golden Meadows moved for rule 11 sanctions for nineteen false factual contentions across four Strand/Allen filings; sanctions sought $6100.
- After settlements and a hearing, Judge Kay ordered Strand and Allen to pay $3600, and this appeal challenges form, substance, and amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rule 11 sanction order must include explicit findings | Plaintiff contends the order incorporates supporting materials and thus has adequate findings. | Strand/Allen argue the order lacks explicit, separate factual findings for each contention. | Order adequate; findings incorporated from supporting materials satisfy rule 11(c)(3). |
| Whether Judge Kay's findings of fact support a rule 11 violation | Plaintiff argues the nineteen contentions were false and unsupported. | Strand/Allen argue the findings are not supported by the record. | Findings supported by adopting Golden Meadows' allegations and evidence; no contradiction marshaled by Strand/Allen. |
| Whether Judge Kay correctly concluded a rule 11 violation occurred | Strand/Allen claim statements lacked evidentiary support. | Golden Meadows shows multiple unsupported contentions; the rule 11 duties were breached. | Judge Kay did not err in concluding a rule 11 violation. |
| Whether the sanction amount is within the court’s discretion | Dispute over use of total fees and lack of segregation in the fee affidavit. | Discretion to tailor sanctions includes using total costs to deter similar conduct. | Sanction of $3600 within the court's discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnard v. Sutliff, 846 P.2d 1229 (Utah 1992) (three-tier standard for reviewing rule 11 sanctions)
- Morse v. Packer, 15 P.3d 1021 (Utah 2000) (affirmative duty to investigate facts before filing under rule 11)
- Griffith v. Griffith, 985 P.2d 255 (Utah 1999) (need explicit factual predicates under rule 11(c)(3))
- Archuleta v. Galetka, 197 P.3d 650 (Utah 2008) (trial courts have wide discretion to tailor sanctions)
- Edwards v. Powder Mountain Water & Sewer, 214 P.3d 120 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (sanctions should deter improper conduct)
- Robertson's Marine, Inc. v. 14 Solutions, Inc., 223 P.3d 1141 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (appellate review may rely on court memoranda when findings are not in a single written document)
- Jorgensen's, Inc. v. Ogden City Mall Co., 26 P.3d 872 (Utah 2001) (incorporation by reference of supporting materials is permissible)
- Ostermiller v. Ostermiller, 233 P.3d 489 (Utah 2010) (to challenge a factual finding, must marshal all evidence and show legal insufficiency)
- Chen v. Stewart, 100 P.3d 1177 (Utah 2004) (standard for challenging findings on appeal)