PC Crane Service, LLC v. McQueen Masonry, Inc.
273 P.3d 396
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- PC Crane Service, LLC et al. vs McQueen Masonry, Inc. et al. involves the purchase of goodwill tied to four cranes and related notes secured by real property; multiple payment instruments and guarantees are involved.
- Goodwill notes and related security instruments contemplated an attorney fees provision only upon certain defaults, with stipulations deferring lump-sum payments during litigation.
- McQueen sought attorney fees under non-purchase-document instruments (goodwill notes, deed of trust, guaranty) and later under a statutory reciprocal-fees provision, while PC Crane challenged any such fees.
- A jury resolved all claims in McQueen’s favor; post-trial motions addressed attorney fees, sanctions for discovery abuse, and deposition costs.
- Judge Reese denied some fee requests due to lack of a default and awarded sanctions of $7,475 for discovery misconduct; costs for deposition were awarded; the case was remanded for reconsideration of sanctions in light of new evidence that the trailer modification never occurred.
- The court ultimately affirmed denial of contractual fees, affirmed deposition costs, and remanded sanctions to reconsider Judge Dever’s prior rulings in light of new admissions by PC Crane.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney fees—contractual entitlement | McQueen argues goodwill notes/deed of trust/guaranty authorize fees. | PC Crane contends no event of default triggered fee provisions. | No contractual fees awarded; default not established. |
| Reciprocal statute viability | McQueen invokes 78B-5-826 as an alternative basis. | Statutory fees require preservation and applicable contract terms. | Statutory fees not awarded; not preserved; contract terms control. |
| Sanctions for discovery abuse | Sanctions justified due to inconsistent positions and late disclosures. | PC Crane disputes the factual basis and sufficiency of sanctions. | Sanctions upheld but remanded to reconsider in light of new evidence that trailer modification never occurred. |
| Deposition costs | deposition costs are necessary and properly awarded. | Costs not properly supported or preserved. | Deposition costs affirmed; issue not preserved for appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilpatrick v. Bullough Abatement, Inc., 2008 UT 82 (Utah 2008) (sanctions standard; fault or willfulness required for rule 37/26 sanctions)
- Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82 (Utah 2004) (standard of review for sanctions; evidentiary support)
- Turtle Mgmt., Inc. v. Haggis Mgmt., Inc., 645 P.2d 667 (Utah 1982) (fees must be provided by contract and in strict accordance with terms)
- Faulkner v. Farnsworth, 714 P.2d 1149 (Utah 1986) (fees awarded only upon default; enforcement triggers default language)
- IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D&K Mgmt., Inc., 2008 UT 73 (Utah 2008) (contractual attorney fees require contract-based basis)
- Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 2009 UT 2 (Utah 2009) (reciprocal fees statute aims to level contractual risk)