406 P.3d 253
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Goldenwest loaned Kenworthy funds in 2006 for a vehicle; maturity April 15, 2012; original monthly payments $487.21.
- May 2008, after missed payments, Goldenwest agreed to reduce payments to $200, but no other terms changed.
- Kenworthy made one $200 payment and then defaulted; Goldenwest sued Feb 5, 2014 for the remaining balance.
- District court granted summary judgment to Kenworthy, holding the claim barred by statute of limitations.
- Goldenwest argued the six-year statute for written contracts applied, or that an oral modification triggered the four-year statute for oral contracts; issue also whether accrual began at breach or maturity.
- Court affirms district court’s grant of summary judgment and awards attorney fees to Kenworthy; preserves issues related to statutes of limitations and accrual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations governs? | Goldenwest: six-year period for written contracts applies. | Kenworthy: oral modification brings four-year period into play. | Six-year vs four-year depends on material change; court ultimately affirms based on preservation rules. |
| Does the oral payment reduction constitute a material modification triggering Strand? | Goldenwest: Strand may be inapplicable; modification not material. | Kenworthy: modification could be material under Strand. | Court declines to adopt Goldenwest’s Strand challenge; Strand remains relevant but not addressed as dispositive. |
| When does the statute of limitations accrue in this context? | Accrual from modification date or earlier. | Accrual from breach or maturity; depends on acceleration. | Accrual should be from breach/maturity; analysis framed by prior rulings. |
| Was Goldenwest’s argument preserved for appeal? | Goldenwest preserved sufficient theory. | Goldenwest failed to preserve/brief key arguments. | Appellate court cannot reverse on unpreserved arguments; affirms summary judgment. |
| Did district court err in awarding fees, given the disposition? | (Not presented as a standalone issue on appeal). | Kenworthy prevailed; fees awarded. | Fees affirmed as prevailing party; remand for appellate fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ockey v. Club J Am, 328 P.3d 880 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing summary judgment; view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (summary judgment standard; movant must show no material issue of fact)
- Griffin v. Cutler, 339 P.3d 100 (Utah App. 2014) (statute of limitations for contracts; six-year apply to written contracts; four-year for oral modifications)
- Strand v. Union Pac. R.R., 312 P.2d 561 (Utah 1957) (material change to an oral modification affects applicable statute of limitations)
- Upland Indus. Corp. v. Pacific Gamble Robinson Co., 684 P.2d 638 (Utah 1984) (limitations accrual upon breach; accrual when breach occurs)