In re Estate of Deeter, 464 P.3d 1164

In 1999 Ron Deeter opened TIAA/CREF retirement accounts and executed a beneficiary designation naming his then-wife Christy primary and his brother Barry contingent.
After divorcing Christy (2004) and marrying Emily (2005), Ron never changed the 1999 TIAA/CREF beneficiary designation; Christy was removed by operation of law but Barry remained contingent.
In 2015 Ron opened Fidelity accounts naming Emily primary and Barry contingent; Ron told Emily she was to be the sole beneficiary, but he did not alter the 1999 TIAA/CREF designation.
Ron died in 2016; TIAA/CREF distributed about $299,000 to Barry per the 1999 beneficiary designation.
Emily sued Barry asserting testamentary intent and unjust enrichment and sought remittance of the TIAA/CREF funds; Barry moved for summary judgment arguing the accounts are contractual/nontestamentary and unjust enrichment fails.
Emily opposed, asserting discovery was incomplete but failed to file a Utah R. Civ. P. 56(d) affidavit; the district court granted Barry summary judgment and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying more discovery under Rule 56(d)	Emily argued summary judgment was premature because discovery was incomplete	Barry argued Emily did not comply with Rule 56(d) (no affidavit) and discovery likely would not change outcome	Court: No abuse of discretion; Emily failed to file the required 56(d) affidavit and did not show how further discovery would defeat summary judgment
Whether testamentary intent can defeat a beneficiary designation on nontestamentary retirement contracts	Emily argued Ron intended Emily to receive the retirement funds and factual disputes about intent/revocation precluded summary judgment	Barry argued retirement account distributions are governed by contract and are nontestamentary, so testamentary intent is irrelevant	Court: Testamentary intent cannot alter nontestamentary retirement contracts; summary judgment proper
Whether Emily’s unjust enrichment claim precluded summary judgment	Emily asserted unjust enrichment or other equitable grounds to recover the funds	Barry argued Emily did not confer a benefit on him and a contract governs distribution	Court: Emily did not meaningfully challenge the district court’s ruling on unjust enrichment on appeal; summary judgment stands

Kuchcinski v. Box Elder County, 450 P.3d 1056 (Utah 2019) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Heslop v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 390 P.3d 314 (Utah 2017) (requirements for Rule 56(d) affidavit and need to explain how continuance will aid opposition)
Gerbich v. Numed Inc., 977 P.2d 1205 (Utah 1999) (plaintiff retains ultimate burden to prove elements at trial even when opposing summary judgment)
Salo v. Tyler, 417 P.3d 581 (Utah 2018) (movant may obtain summary judgment on claims where nonmoving party bears burden without producing movant evidence)
Uckerman v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 588 P.2d 142 (Utah 1978) (retirement contracts are nontestamentary and cannot be altered by wills)
Concrete Products Co. v. Salt Lake County, 734 P.2d 910 (Utah 1987) (unjust enrichment requires a benefit conferred)
Callioux v. Progressive Ins. Co., 745 P.2d 838 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (explaining need to show how continuance will aid opposition)
Gillett v. Price, 135 P.3d 861 (Utah 2006) (criticizing proliferating motions to reconsider)
Shipman v. Evans, 100 P.3d 1151 (Utah 2004) (discussing motion practice concerns)