McQueen v. Jordan Pines Townhomes Owners Ass'n
298 P.3d 666
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- McQueen bought a Jordan Pines condo in Feb 2006, signing the declaration obligating assessments.
- He never occupied the unit and rented it to tenants for about 19 months.
- McQueen fell behind on assessments by $903.71, triggering a lien by the Association.
- The Association pursued a nonjudicial foreclosure commencing Mar 2, 2007, recording a Notice of Lien, Notice of Default, and a Notice of Sale.
- Exchange Properties, Inc. was the sole bidder at the Sept 11, 2007 sale and purchased the unit for $3,312.76, including arrears, costs, and attorney fees.
- The district court later invalidated the sale as nonjudicial because the Association did not appoint a qualified trustee, and quieted title in McQueen; McQueen then sued Exchange and the Association, and later sought attorney fees, which the court denied; both sides appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a qualified trustee is required to conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure of an assessment lien. | McQueen (as plaintiff) argues a qualified trustee is required under the Trust Deed Act. | Association contends the Condominium Ownership Act supersedes trustee requirements and permits nonjudicial sale by a manager or committee. | Yes; a qualified trustee is required for nonjudicial foreclosure of an assessment lien. |
| Whether the absence of a qualified trustee invalidates the foreclosure sale. | McQueen contends the sale was void due to lack of proper trustee procedures. | Association contends the statute allows foreclosure by manager/committee without a trustee. | Yes; the sale is void for lack of a proper trustee. |
| Whether McQueen is entitled to attorney fees under the reciprocal fee statute or as consequential damages. | McQueen seeks fees under Utah’s Reciprocal Fee Statute or as consequential damages from the prior litigation. | Association argues the action was not based on a contract and the fees are not recoverable as consequential damages. | Neither; fees denied under reciprocal statute and consequential damages theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooban v. Unicity Int'l, Inc., 2012 UT 40 (Utah 2012) (contract-based fee recovery not applicable; not based on declaration)
- Anderson & Karrenberg v. Warnick, 2012 UT App 275 (Utah App. 2012) (reciprocal fees require contract-based action to recover attorney fees)
- Bilanzich v. Lonetti, 2007 UT 26 (Utah 2007) (two conditions for reciprocal attorney fees under § 78B-5-826)
- Gardiner v. York, 2006 UT App 496 (Utah App. 2006) (damages-based fees require contract breach causing fees)
- First Sec. Bank of Utah, NA v. Banberry Crossing, 780 P.2d 1253 (Utah 1989) (trustee duties; conveyance of title to trustee)
- Russell v. Lundberg, 120 P.3d 541 (Utah App. 2005) (trustee duty to act with diligence and good faith)
- Lombardi v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) ((example placeholder if needed))