Ld III, LLC v. Bbrd, Lc, 303 P.3d 1017

LD III, LLC appeals a district court judgment awarding Davis over $1 million for contempt damages, plus fees and costs.
The contempt arose from LD III’s failure to close a real estate sale to Davis by September 30, 2008 as required by a September 23, 2008 ruling enforcing a settlement.
LD III challenged the district court’s jurisdiction to hear contempt while an appeal was pending and argued the October 9, 2008 order changed the deadline and deferred merits.
The district court found LD III in contempt, awarded damages based on lost sale opportunities and a sixth lot, and later awarded attorney fees through July 31, 2011, with additional fees following.
The Utah Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the contempt finding did not comport with due process and required explicit findings on the three elements of contempt, prompting reversal and remand.
On remand, the court directs a hearing to address LD III’s knowledge, ability, and intent to comply, with proper written findings supporting contempt if pursued.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the contempt order properly issued with findings?	Davis contends contempt was valid and supported by the record.	LD III argues lack of adequate written findings and due process violations.	Remand for proper findings and due process required; contempt ruling reversed.
Did the district court have jurisdiction to adjudicate contempt during an appeal?	Court retained jurisdiction to enforce its order notwithstanding the appeal.	LD III challenged jurisdiction due to pending appeal.	Jurisdictional question to be resolved on remand with due process protections.
Were the three elements of contempt (knowledge, ability, intent) proven by clear and convincing evidence?	Evidence established LD III knew what was required but failed or refused to comply.	No explicit findings or adequate opportunity to challenge these elements.	Elements require explicit factual findings; remand to develop proper findings.
Did the court correctly classify the contempt as civil or criminal and tailor relief accordingly?	Damages served as a remedial civil sanction for noncompliance.	Classification and procedural handling were flawed due to process issues.	Civil contempt is proper but requires proper procedure and findings; remand.

Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1988) (three elements of contempt must be proven; due process protections apply)
Coleman v. Coleman, 664 P.2d 1155 (Utah 1983) ( Coleman about burden on defendant to present evidence on three elements)
Chen v. Stewart, 123 P.3d 416 (Utah 2005) (acknowledges statutory and inherent power to sanction; due process considerations)
Burke v. Lewis, 122 P.3d 533 (Utah 2005) (contempt power and procedural safeguards in Utah cases)
Baggett v. Wilson, 263 P.3d 411 (Utah App. 2011) (threshold jurisdiction and due process themes in appellate contempt context)