Koerber v. Robert J. DeBry
2013 UT App 266
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Tenants Claud R. Koerber and Jewel K. Skousen sued their Landlord, Nancy A. Mismash, and Landlord’s employer, the law firm Robert J. DeBry & Associates, PC (DeBry), over disputes arising from a lease agreement.
- Tenants alleged various causes of action rooted in the lease and attempted to hold DeBry liable, but their pleadings lacked specific factual allegations about DeBry’s role.
- The trial court granted DeBry’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and later granted summary judgment for Landlord; DeBry moved for partial summary disposition seeking affirmance of its dismissal.
- On review, the appellate court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true but declined to credit conclusory statements or legal conclusions presented as facts.
- The court concluded the allegations against DeBry were vague, conclusory, or legal conclusions and that there was no factual showing DeBry was a party to the lease or directly involved in the contract’s formation or breach.
- The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of DeBry and proceeded with the appeal of the summary judgment for Landlord.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a claim against DeBry | DeBry became a party to the contract based on its asserted acts and statements | Pleadings lack factual detail tying DeBry to the lease or showing direct involvement; allegations are conclusory | Dismissal affirmed — allegations insufficient to state a claim |
| Whether alleged statements/assistance by DeBry make it vicariously liable | Tenants argue DeBry acted on Landlord’s behalf, making it liable | DeBry only assisted/enforced terms for Landlord; no direct role in lease shown | Court treats statements as conclusory; no vicarious liability implied without factual support |
| Proper standard on review of a motion to dismiss | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Review accepts complaint facts as true but rejects mere legal conclusions and conclusory allegations; dismissal reviewed for correctness |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Apotex Corp., 282 P.3d 66 (Utah 2012) (standard for reviewing motion to dismiss and accepting alleged facts)
- Kuhre v. Goodfellow, 69 P.3d 286 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (conclusory allegations insufficient to avoid dismissal)
- Commonwealth Prop. Advocates v. MERS, Inc., 263 P.3d 397 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (court need not accept legal conclusions framed as facts)