Neff v. Neff, 2011 UT 6

Branson and Marvin Neff are brothers who were once business partners and co-owners of the brothers' construction enterprises and farm property.
The dissolution agreement included transfer and unification of jointly owned farm property and related quitclaim/deed implications, which Branson alleged affected his title and sought remedies for potential misrepresentation and breach of contract.
During the litigation, Branson and Marvin amended claims to include assaults, battery, and malicious prosecution arising from a January 2005 altercation and related protective orders.
Branson pleaded guilty to violating a protective order pursuant to a plea in abeyance; the aggravated assault charge was either dismissed or pending referral depending on evidence, but the plea affected Branson’s malicious prosecution claim.
Marvin also pursued fiduciary and trust-related claims, alleging Branson mismanaged family trust assets and breached fiduciary duties, including misappropriation of funds and improper handling of Manila ranch proceeds.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Marvin on Branson’s malicious-prosecution claim, conducted jury trials on business-dissolution issues, and later rendered a bench trial on trust-related issues with overlapping damages and fee-disposition considerations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Malicious-prosecution termination standard	Branson contends probable cause and malice were disputed; termination favorable to Branson was shown by the plea.	Marvin argues the plea in abeyance does not terminate the proceedings in Branson's favor, so the claim fails.	Termination not in Branson's favor; summary judgment affirmed on alternative basis.
Attorney-fees ruling on prevailing-party status	Branson challenges the denial of attorney fees and argues overall litigation success favored Marvin in parts.	Marvin contends the court properly declined fees given mixed outcomes and little net recovery for both sides.	Court did not abuse discretion; neither party prevailed overall.
Slander of title damages and fee recovery	Branson asserts attorney fees may form the damages in slander-of-title claims and that the jury’s damages, including fees, should be upheld.	Marvin argues attorney fees cannot be damages for slander of title and that the verdict is internally inconsistent.	Reversed in part: attorney-fees may form damages in slander of title; remanded to determine fee amount.
Breach of fiduciary duty damages	Branson claims damages could include attorney fees associated with fiduciary-duty litigation.	Marvin asserts attorney fees cannot be the damages basis for breach of fiduciary duty.	JNOV affirmed as to breach of fiduciary duty; attorney fees cannot be the basis for damages.

Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2009) (termination of proceedings must indicate innocence; full proceedings considered)
Bass v. Planned Mgmt. Servs., 761 P.2d 566 (Utah 1988) (attorney fees may be recoverable as special damages to remove a cloud on title)
Valley Colour, Inc. v. Beuchert Builders, Inc., 944 P.2d 361 (Utah 1997) (proof of special damages requires realized loss or costs to remedy title clouds)
Dowse v. Doris Trust Co., 208 P.2d 956 (Utah 1949) (recognizes removal of clouds on title as basis for damages)
First Sec. Bank of Utah N.A. v. Banberry Crossing, 780 P.2d 1253 (Utah 1989) (attorney fees as damages in tort cases; requires analysis of recoverable damages)
Campbell v. State FarmMutual Auto. Ins. Co., 65 P.3d 1134 (Utah 2001) (exceptional treatment of attorney fees in certain bad-faith contexts; distinguishable from fiduciary-duty context)
Willey v. Willey, 951 P.2d 226 (Utah 1997) (review of fee decisions requires meaningful appellate review)
R.T. Nielsen Co. v. Cook, 2002 UT 11 (Utah 2002) (flexible, reasoned approach to determining prevailing party in fee awards)
Bennion v. LeGrand Johnson Constr. Co., 701 P.2d 1078 (Utah 1985) (considers internal consistency and reconciliation of jury verdicts)