Pyper v. Reil, 437 P.3d 493

In October 2012 Pyper signed a promissory note and trust deed pledging real property as collateral for a $445,401.50 loan; he expected monthly payments and a $250,000 repayment bonus and believed the funds would finance an acquisition of Seaich Corporation.
Kennedy solicited Pyper, promised repayment and ongoing payments; Reil cosigned and was present at the October 19 closing but gave only general reassurances and did not otherwise interact with Pyper before or after the closing.
Meridian Title Company acted as escrow agent at the closing, followed the lender’s escrow instructions, and wired $400,000 to Agro Chem Tech; the loan principal was never repaid and Pyper received no promised payments.
Pyper sued Kennedy and Reil for breach, undue influence, civil conspiracy, and securities fraud, and sued Meridian for negligence alleging it should have detected and stopped an apparent fraud at closing.
The district court granted Meridian summary judgment, concluding an escrow agent’s duty does not include halting a transaction merely because fraud is suspected; after bench trial the court found Kennedy liable but dismissed Pyper’s conspiracy claim against Reil for lack of a meeting of the minds on an unlawful purpose.
Pyper appealed, challenging (1) the dismissal of his conspiracy claim against Reil and (2) summary judgment for Meridian on the claimed duty to stop an apparently fraudulent escrow transaction; the Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pyper proved civil conspiracy against Reil	Pyper argued Reil participated in a conspiracy with Kennedy to defraud him by facilitating the loan and thus is liable even if he did not make independent misrepresentations	Reil (and the court) argued there was no meeting of the minds on an unlawful purpose and insufficient evidence that Reil agreed to or intended a fraudulent objective	Affirmed: Pyper failed to prove conspiracy; no meeting of the minds on an unlawful purpose shown
Whether an escrow agent owes a duty to stop a transaction it reasonably suspects is fraudulent	Pyper argued industry standards and expert testimony support imposing an affirmative duty on escrow agents to detect and prevent fraud—even if doing so requires refusing signed closing/disbursement instructions	Meridian argued its fiduciary duty is limited: it must follow escrow instructions and disclose suspicious facts but is not required to interpose independent judgment to halt transactions signed by principals	Affirmed: Court declined to expand escrow agent’s duty to include an affirmative obligation to stop transactions suspected of fraud; summary judgment for Meridian proper

Pohl, Inc. of Am. v. Webelhuth, 201 P.3d 944 (Utah 2008) (elements and proof standard for civil conspiracy)
Crane Co. v. Dahle, 576 P.2d 870 (Utah 1978) (civil conspiracy principles)
Schoepe v. Zions First Nat’l Bank, 750 F. Supp. 1084 (D. Utah 1990) (discussing scope of escrow agent duties and disclosure of potential fraud)
Freegard v. First W. Nat’l Bank, 738 P.2d 614 (Utah 1987) (escrow agent duties to disburse funds and protect property)
Orlando Millenia, LC v. United Title Servs. of Utah, Inc., 355 P.3d 965 (Utah 2015) (fiduciary duty of title/escrow agents and core obligation to follow instructions)
Jeffs v. West, 275 P.3d 228 (Utah 2012) (framework for determining existence and scope of legal duty)