301 P.3d 1026
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Nolin and Rushforth homeowners contracted with S&S for new homes in Paradise Canyon, St. George, Utah.
- A rock retaining wall in the Limited Common Area between lots 243 and 244 collapsed in 2005, causing damage to both homes.
- Settlement: homeowners received $20,000 toward estimated $60,000 wall replacement; fees issue reserved for district court.
- Settlement language reserved attorney fees as prevailing party issue under Rule 7 and other laws; Homeowners sought fees and costs.
- District court granted $141,575 in attorney fees and costs to homeowners based on alleged breaches under the REPCs.
- S&S appeals, arguing REPCs contain no warranty covering the retaining wall and fees were not recoverable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are attorney fees recoverable under the REPCs? | Nolin/Rushforth prevail under REPC §17. | REPCs do not cover the Retaining Wall; no recoverable fees. | No; they are not recoverable under the REPCs. |
| Does the Retaining Wall fall within an express or implied warranty under the REPCs? | Wall is a structural element; within implied warranty of workmanlike manner. | REPCs only cover elements of the Residence, not Limited Common Area wall. | Not covered; no express or implied warranty applies to the wall. |
| Was the district court's fee award based on proper contract interpretation or extrinsic evidence? | Court properly interpreted contracts; included photos as context. | Relied on extrinsic evidence beyond the four corners of the contracts. | Contract language controls; extrinsic evidence not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson & Karrenberg v. Warnick, 2012 UT App 275 (Utah Court of Appeals 2012) (attorney fees recoverable only when authorized by contract or statute)
- Jones v. Riche, 216 P.3d 357 (Utah 2009) (strict application of contractual attorney fee provisions)
- R.T. Nielson Co. v. Cook, 40 P.3d 1119 (Utah 2002) (attorney fees question is a matter of law)
- Moore v. Smith, 158 P.3d 562 (Utah App. 2007) (reasonable attorney fee calculation within district court discretion)
- Daines v. Vincent, 190 P.3d 1269 (Utah 2008) (ambiguity requires reasonable contract interpretation; extrinsic evidence limited)
- Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing Homeowners Ass'n v. Davencourt at Pilgrims Landing, LC, 221 P.3d 234 (Utah 2009) (implied warranty of workmanlike manner; limited scope for new residences)
- Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 201 P.3d 966 (Utah 2009) (contract interpretation guiding ambiguity analysis)
- Green River Canal Co. v. Thayn, 84 P.3d 1134 (Utah 2003) (harmonization of contract terms in interpretation)
- Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass'n, 907 P.2d 264 (Utah 1995) (consideration of credible extrinsic evidence in ambiguity analysis)
- Hillcrest Inv. Co. v. Utah Dep't of Transp., 287 P.3d 427 (Utah App. 2012) (ambiguity requires reasonable support in contract language)
- Central Utah Water Conservancy Dist. v. King, 2013 UT 13 (Utah 2013) (harmonization and interpretation of contract terms)
- Deep Creek Ranch, LLC v. Utah State Armory Bd., 178 P.3d 886 (Utah 2008) (contract interpretation and ambiguity framework)
- Saleh v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 133 P.3d 428 (Utah 2006) (reading contract terms to avoid meaningless provisions)