N.A.R., Inc. v. Vermillion, 2012 UT App 191

Baird, a dentist, provided services to Vermillion; Vermillion disputed payment claiming defective care.
Baird assigned Vermillion’s debt to N.A.R., Inc. via an assignment-of-debt agreement; N.A.R. sued Vermillion to collect the debt.
Baird was not a party to the collection action.
Vermillion counterclaimed under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act; Vermillion subpoenaed Baird for deposition and documents, causing substantial fees for Baird to quash and limit scope.
On the day of trial, Vermillion and N.A.R. settled; N.A.R. released all claims including those against Baird; the parties bore their own fees; Baird attended without counsel and did not object to settlement; Baird later sought attorney fees, which the trial court denied as the settlement bound him.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Baird is in privity with N.A.R. to bar fee claims	Baird argues no privity; he was an assignment party and only a witness.	N.A.R. contends Baird’s 50% interest and assignment created privity.	Yes; Baird is in privity and bound by settlement.
Whether the settlement precluded Baird’s fee claim	Settlement released claims; Baird seeks fees arising from that action.	Settlement extends to Baird due to privity; fees barred.	Yes; settlement precluded Baird’s fee claim.
Whether the assignment-of-debt created privity for fee claims	Assignment alone does not imply privity.	Assignment coupled with 50% interest creates privity for purposes of fee claim.	Yes; assignment and interest support privity.

Searle Brothers v. Searle, 588 P.2d 689 (Utah 1978) (defines privity for purposes of preclusion and rights in property)
Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 110 P.3d 678 (Utah 2005) (outlines collateral estoppel/privity analysis)
RB&G Eng’g, Inc. v. RB&G Eng’g, Inc., 230 P.3d 1000 (Utah 2010) (explains assignment/rights continuation and privity considerations)
Murray v. State, 737 P.2d 1000 (Utah 1987) (contracts enforceability without a statute of frauds)