409 P.3d 111
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- AK Meritage recorded a lis pendens in Weber County, Utah, against two North Ogden parcels titled to Meritage Companies LLC, referencing an action pending in Alaska.
- Meritage, the Utah titleholder and developer of the parcels, sued in Utah district court seeking nullification of the lis pendens, or alternatively requiring AK Meritage to post a guarantee, and sought injunctive relief prohibiting further encumbrances.
- The district court held it lacked authority to release the lis pendens because the underlying action was pending in Alaska, and therefore denied Meritage’s motion to release, denied the request for a guarantee, and denied injunctive relief.
- Meritage appealed, arguing the Utah court should be able to release the lis pendens, require a bond, or issue an injunction.
- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the Utah lis pendens statute permits a motion to release only in the court where the underlying action is pending, the court may permissively require a guarantee but was not required to do so, and denying injunctive relief was within the court’s discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah court could release lis pendens recorded in Utah based on an Alaska action | Meritage: Utah court can nullify the lis pendens affecting Utah property | AK Meritage: Only the court where the underlying action is pending may release the lis pendens | Court: Statute allows a motion to release only in the court where the action is pending; Utah court lacked authority to release it |
| Whether Utah court could require a guarantee/bond to maintain lis pendens | Meritage: Court should require bond because lis pendens stalled development | AK Meritage: No bond required; district court lacked basis absent merits review | Court: Statute is permissive; even assuming jurisdiction, district court did not abuse discretion denying bond |
| Whether Utah court could issue injunctive relief preventing maintenance or recording of lis pendens | Meritage: Injunction available to stop encumbrances and protect development | AK Meritage: Injunction would circumvent statutory scheme assigning release authority to the forum court | Court: Denial of injunction upheld; Meritage cannot use injunctive relief to subvert section 78B-6-1304 |
| Proper procedural vehicle to challenge lis pendens | Meritage: Could proceed under quiet title or Wrongful Lien Act | AK Meritage: Meritage filed under the lis pendens statute, not wrongful-lien provisions | Court: Meritage did not file a wrongful lien petition (did not meet statutory affidavit/specification requirements); relief under those statutes was not before the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Hidden Meadows Dev. Co. v. Mills, 590 P.2d 1244 (Utah 1979) (lis pendens serves to notify public and charge subsequent dealings with notice)
- Water & Energy Sys. Tech., Inc. v. Keil, 974 P.2d 821 (Utah 1999) (standard of review for injunctive relief; abuse of discretion governs)
- Winters v. Schulman, 977 P.2d 1218 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (court’s review of lis pendens under wrongful-lien framework is confined to the face of the underlying claims)
- Eldridge v. Farnsworth, 166 P.3d 639 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (discussion of wrongful lien review and limitations)
- Bott v. Osburn, 257 P.3d 1022 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (principle that statutory interpretation is reviewed for correctness)