Reynolds v. Bickel
307 P.3d 570
Utah2013Background
- Reynolds appeals district court summary judgment for Tanner LC and Bickel on Utah Code 58-26a-602(2)(b).
- Reynolds sought tax planning services for Altaview Companies to minimize personal tax on a sale of assets.
- Retention agreement named Altaview Concrete as client; Reynolds signed on behalf of Altaview Concrete.
- Defendants argued Section 602(2)(b) writing requirement not satisfied and no privity; Reynolds not in privity.
- Altaview Companies’ sale closed Sept. 15, 2010; Defendants admitted knowing primary benefit was Reynolds.
- Court held writings satisfied Section 602(2)(b) via nexus among emails and spreadsheets; reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section 602(2)(b) apply to Reynolds? | Reynolds argues writing requirement not applicable. | Bickel/Defendants argue requirement applies. | Yes, the writing requirement applies. |
| Do Reynolds-presented writings satisfy the writing requirement? | Writings identified a third party's reliance on services. | No single writing states explicit reliance by Reynolds. | Yes; writings satisfied via nexus and implied reference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregerson v. Jensen, 617 P.2d 369 (Utah 1980) (statute of frauds nexus; writings may be read together)
- Machan Hampshire Props., Inc. v. W. Real Estate & Dev. Co., 779 P.2d 230 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (memorialization principles for writing requirements)
- Wardley Better Homes & Gardens v. Cannon, 61 P.3d 1009 (Utah 2002) (agency communications as to client communications)
- Ivory Homes, Ltd. v. Utah State Tax Comm’n, 266 P.3d 751 (Utah 2011) (statutory interpretation framework)