Grazer v. Jones
2012 UT 58
Utah2012Background
- Grazer obtained a nearly $2 million judgment against Jones and Barney for breach of contract; a sheriff's sale transferred the property to Grazer’s attorney on his client's behalf.
- Jones and Barney assigned their redemption rights to the Olsen Trust under rule 69C(c).
- Grazer challenged the Olsen Trust’s July 8 redemption as noncompliant with rule 69C(c).
- The district court held the Olsen Trust’s July 8 redemption substantially complied; the court of appeals affirmed under that standard.
- Grazer sought certiorari; the Utah Supreme Court granted review to clarify rule 69C(c) requirements under circumstances like these.
- The Olsen Trust’s redemption on July 8 proceeded with documents delivered to Grazer’s attorney, who rejected them; later, the Trust reattempted redemption but continued to face disputed compliance conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is strict compliance required by rule 69C(c) or should a substantial compliance standard apply? | Grazer argues strict compliance. | Olsen Trust argues substantial compliance suffices. | Rule 69C(c) does not use substantial compliance; the Court adopts a prejudice/harmlessness standard. |
| Did the Olsen Trust's first redemption substantially comply with rule 69C(c) despite missing documents? | Noncompliance invalidates redemption. | Deficiency was harmless and thus redeemable. | Redemption upheld under the prejudice/harmlessness framework; deficiencies were harmless. |
| Was Hobbs Grazer’s agent with authority to accept service and payments? | Grazer contends Hobbs lacked authority. | Hobbs acted as Grazer’s agent with actual/apparent authority. | Hobbs had actual and apparent authority; he could reject or accept on Grazer’s behalf was improper. |
| When must a purchaser file a notice of costs to avoid waiver under rule 69C(e)? | Costs can be noticed at any time. | Notice must precede redemption. | Notice of costs must be filed before redemption to avoid waiver. |
| Does timely notice of costs after redemption affect validity of redemption? | Notice after redemption could negate redemption. | Post-redemption costs notice cannot invalidate valid redemption. | Grazer waived costs by timely filing only after redemption; redemption remains valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Loosley, 551 P.2d 506 (Utah 1976) (relevance of substantial compliance and prejudice analysis in redemption)
- Huston v. Lewis, 818 P.2d 531 (Utah 1991) (limits of substantial compliance and harmless error in redemption)
- Campbell v. Gowans, 100 P.3d 397 (Utah 1909) (estoppel where agent appears to have authority)
- Springer v. Springer, 853 P.2d 888 (Utah 1993) (agency/authority context guidance)
- Mollerup v. Storage Sys. Int'l., 569 P.2d 1122 (Utah 1977) (agency/authority and notice defects)
- Loosley (cited as United States v. Loosley), 551 P.2d 506 (Utah 1976) (substantial compliance framework origins)