McCollin v. J.D.F. Properties, LLC
324 P.3d 662
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- MeCollin sued J.D.F. for damages to his land alleged to result from the Duchesne River flow alteration after J.D.F. obtained a 2009 stream alteration permit.
- MeCollin claimed the altered river washed away land and a mature tree and sought damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and unjust enrichment related to the alleged harm.
- The district court granted summary judgment to J.D.F. on all claims, including the central 'damage to real property' claim, finding no standalone cognizable claim and no pleaded negligence theory.
- MeCollin did not plead a specific tort theory of liability for the 'damage to real property' claim and did not tie damages to a recognized cause of action in opposition to the summary judgment motion.
- On appeal, MeCollin contends the district court erred by granting summary judgment, arguing negligence should be inferred or consented to by trial conduct, and challenging the court’s denial of certain evidentiary materials.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no standalone damage claim was pleaded, no consent to try a negligence claim was shown, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking an improperly filed Army Corps letter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 'damage to real property' is a standalone claim. | MeCollin | J.D.F. | Not a standalone claim; dismissed. |
| Whether MeCollin pleaded a cognizable tort theory (e.g., negligence) for damages. | MeCollin | J.D.F. | No cognizable theory pleaded; elements not proven. |
| Whether the record shows the negligence issue was tried by consent under Rule 15(b). | MeCollin | J.D.F. | Not tried by consent; Rule 15(b) not satisfied. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking the Army Corps letter. | MeCollin | J.D.F. | No; properly struck as improperly filed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Orvis v. Johnson, 2008 UT 2 (Utah Supreme Court 2008) (standard for reviewing summary judgment on factual inferences)
- Williams v. Melby, 699 P.2d 723 (Utah 1985) (pleadings must give fair notice of the claim asserted)
- Kranendonk v. Gregory & Swapp, PLLC, 2014 UT App 86 (Utah Court of Appeals 2014) (summary-judgment standard; favorable inferences allowed but not conjecture)
- Gudmundson v. Del Ozone, 2010 UT 83 (Utah Supreme Court 2010) (pleadings must tie to cognizable causes of action)
- Fisher v. Davidhizar, 2011 UT App 270 (Utah Court of Appeals 2011) (Rule 15(b) can apply to cases tried by summary judgment; notice of issues)
- Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass'n, 907 P.2d 264 (Utah 1995) (Rule 15(b) amendments; issues inferred from incidental evidence)
- PLC Landscape Constr. v. Piccadilly Fish 'N Chips, Inc., 502 P.2d 562 (Utah 1972) (necessity of pleading specifics for summary-judgment challenges)