North Fork Meadows Owners Association v. Dove, 537 P.3d 258

North Fork Meadows (12-lot subdivision): Michael & Cassie Dove bought a lot in 2018, sought CC&R guidance, and began building in July 2019 after informal communications with a board member but without formal architectural approval.
The Association sued and sought a TRO on October 1, 2019, alleging the Doves’ house violated the Second Amended Declaration (garage placement, materials, height, etc.).
After the suit was filed, construction began on two other nonconforming homes owned by a board member; the district court initially granted a TRO (Jan 2020) but dissolved it and denied a preliminary injunction (Mar 2020), finding the Association had effectively abandoned enforcement and thus was unlikely to prevail.
The Doves moved for damages and attorney fees under Utah R. Civ. P. 65A(c)(2) (wrongfully enjoined) and under the Declaration’s prevailing-party attorney-fees clause; the district court denied fees and damages and dismissed the case with prejudice.
On appeal the court affirmed denial of fees/damages under rule 65A (no abuse of discretion) but remanded for the district court to make an explicit prevailing-party determination under the Declaration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Doves were entitled to damages and attorney fees under Utah R. Civ. P. 65A for being wrongfully restrained/enjoined	TRO was later dissolved, so issuance was wrongful and rule 65A authorizes fees/damages	TRO was not "wrongful" because the Doves’ construction violated CC&Rs when TRO issued; dissolution resulted from Association's later abandonment	Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in denying fees under rule 65A because award is discretionary and a reasonable judge could find the TRO not wrongful given Doves’ nonconformance
Whether the Doves were entitled to attorney fees under the Declaration’s prevailing‑party clause	Doves prevailed (TRO dissolved; case dismissed) and are therefore the prevailing party entitled to contractual fees	Association argued mixed results/no prevailing party; many rulings went against Doves and dissolution related to actions outside Doves’ control	Remanded: district court must make an explicit prevailing‑party determination applying the flexible, context‑sensitive factors; appellate court declines to decide it in the first instance

IKON Office Sols., Inc. v. Crook, 6 P.3d 1143 (question whether fees recoverable under rule 65A is a legal question reviewed for correctness)
Fuja v. Adams, 492 P.3d 793 (rule 65A permits recovery of costs and attorney fees when a party is wrongfully enjoined)
Green River Canal Co. v. Thayn, 84 P.3d 1134 (attorney fees may include fees incurred in connection with a wrongfully issued TRO or injunction)
Card v. Card, 391 P.3d 264 (use of "may" indicates discretionary authority)
Mota v. Mota, 382 P.3d 1080 (discretionary statutes/ rules are permissive; appellate review is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Maestas, 299 P.3d 892 (abuse of discretion standard: reversal only if no reasonable person would adopt trial court’s view)
Airport Park Salt Lake City LP v. 42 Hotel SLC LLC, 378 P.3d 117 (trial court must determine who, if anyone, prevailed under a contractual fee provision)
R.T. Nielson Co. v. Cook, 40 P.3d 1119 (prevailing‑party inquiry uses a flexible, case‑by‑case approach and common‑sense factors)
Olsen v. Lund, 246 P.3d 521 (litigation "worthwhile" is not the standard for prevailing party; courts should apply a flexible reasoned approach)
Wihongi v. Catania SFH LLC, 472 P.3d 308 (mixed results may lead to no prevailing party for fee purposes)