Harding v. Atlas Title Insurance Agency, Inc.
285 P.3d 1260
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- On December 5, 2006, Pecan Ridge purchased ten acres from the Hardings, with the Hardings retaining a loan secured by a trust deed later recorded in second position; Atlas conducted the closing but did not record the Hardings' trust deed until September 11, 2007, leaving it in fourth priority as two later deeds were recorded.
- Pecan Ridge later executed a second trust deed in favor of the Hardings on a second property; in 2008, a new deal transferred interests to a third property (Final Property) securing 1,500,633.10 with a second-position lien against a different loan.
- Pecan Ridge defaulted on a separate loan, causing foreclosure on the Final Property and extinguishing the Hardings' interest there.
- Hardings brought breach of contract, good faith, fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, negligence, and conversion claims; Atlas moved for summary judgment on conspiracy and then on proximate-cause grounds for the remaining claims, which the trial court granted.
- The Hardings appeal the trial court’s summary judgment ruling on proximate-cause grounds, seeking reversal and remand so the jury can assess causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a genuine proximate-cause dispute for trial | Hardings argue evidence supports reasonable inferences | Atlas contends causation is speculative and not triable | Not speculative; disputes exist for jury to decide |
| Whether Atlas's failure to record the Initial Property interest caused damages despite the Final Property deal | Hardings link damages to Atlas's record-keeping failure | Atlas argues intervening decision mitigates causation | Causation may be proven; not precluded by the new deal |
| Whether Mahmood v. Ross dictates dismissal or affirmance | Hardings rely on Mahmood to show causal link | Atlas argues Mahmood requires mitigation to preclude liability | Mahmood does not mandate affirmance; remand appropriate |
| Whether Larkin and Wilson can be held liable after conspiracy ruling | Hardings contend possible personal involvement beyond Atlas | Larkin/Wilson argue no viable theory post-conspiracy ruling | Affirmation of summary judgment against Larkin/Wilson not warranted on proximate-cause theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Harline v. Barker, 912 P.2d 433 (Utah 1996) (proximate cause generally a question of fact unless clear in the record)
- Goebel v. Salt Lake City S. R.R. Co., 104 P.3d 1185 (Utah 2004) (reasonable inferences allowed; not mere speculation)
- Scott v. HK Contractors, 196 P.3d 685 (Utah App. 2008) (remains proper to submit proximate-cause theory to jury when supported by evidence)
- Mahmood v. Ross, 990 P.2d 933 (Utah 1999) (mitigation evidence and its relation to causation analyzed; not per se preclusive)