Richards v. Brown, 2012 UT 14

Richards sought a declaration of an unsolemnized marriage with Brown under Utah law; Brown opposed and trial court dismissed the claim as untimely under the one-year repose after cohabitation ended; Richards prevailed on unjust enrichment claim awarding him money; Brown paid the judgment and Richards appealed; the appeal questioned whether accepting payment moots the appeal on separate claims; the court of appeals held Richards did not waive his right to appeal and invalidated the district court’s partial summary judgment; the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to address waiver and statutory interpretation of 30-1-4.5.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of appeal when payment is accepted	Richards did not waive appeal because the unjust enrichment claim is separate from the unsolemnized-marriage claim.	Richards waived rights by accepting payment and benefits, shifting risk.	Richards did not waive his right to appeal on the unsolemnized-marriage claim.
Effect of ceasing cohabitation on 30-1-4.5 relationship	End of cohabitation does not automatically terminate the relationship under 30-1-4.5.	Cohabitation cessation triggers termination of the relationship for the repose period.	Ending cohabitation does not necessarily terminate the relationship; disputed facts remain regarding when the relationship ended.

Jensen v. Eddy, 514 P.2d 1142 (Utah 1973) (separate and independent claim preserved despite payment on another claim)
Hollingsworth v. Farmers Insurance Co., 655 P.2d 637 (Utah 1982) (acceptance of payment with satisfaction can moot the appeal in some circumstances)
Sierra Nev. Mill Co. v. Keith O'Brien Co., 156 P. 943 (Utah 1916) (payment of judgment can extinguish the claim)
Trees v. Lewis, 738 P.2d 612 (Utah 1987) (acceptance of judgment benefits may shift risk, waiving appeal in some instances)
State ex rel. v. Davis, 2011 UT 57 (Utah 2011) (statutory interpretation context for Utah Code provisions)