RJW Media Inc. v. Heath
392 P.3d 956
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Heath built a house with a detached "carriage house" (below-grade garage with an office above) in the Timbers Subdivision; HOA approval was required for construction and plans.
- Timbers CC&R’s limit owners to one residential structure per lot; a structure is treated as residential if it is equipped for cooking (plus sleeping and sanitation); only the cooking criterion was disputed on appeal.
- The carriage house had 110‑volt outlets and a microwave but lacked wiring/plumbing for a stove (no 220‑volt outlet or gas hookup).
- Heath disclosed ten non‑retained experts (including Summit County planner Sean Lewis) with a generic summary; four days before trial he supplemented to state Lewis would testify Summit County does not treat the carriage house as a dwelling because it lacks stove hookups. RJW moved to exclude Lewis.
- The bench trial admitted testimony from multiple architects (including Lewis, Upwall, Hoff, and RJW’s Brighton). The trial court found Heath submitted "complete plans" to the HOA and that the carriage house was not a residence; it allowed Lewis to testify but this ruling is central on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (RJW) | Defendant's Argument (Heath) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pretrial disclosure of non‑retained expert (Rule 26) | Heath’s disclosure was inadequate (too generic); Lewis should have been excluded. | Initial generic disclosure plus eve‑of‑trial supplement were sufficient (or excusable because Lewis was uncooperative). | Court held initial disclosure was legally insufficient under Rule 26 (error). |
| Admitting Lewis’s testimony — prejudice/harmless error | Admission prejudiced RJW because it could not prepare or obtain rebuttal focused on county practice. | Any error was harmless because other witnesses provided same evidence; RJW wasn’t prejudiced. | Error in admitting Lewis was harmless — testimony was cumulative and did not affect outcome; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether the carriage house is a "residence" under CC&R (equipped for cooking) | Presence of microwave/110V or hot plates could make it a residence; RJW’s expert took that view. | Structure lacks required stove hookup (220V or gas) and thus is not a residence under county practice and CC&R standard. | Court held the carriage house is not a residence (no stove hookup); relied on testimony about Summit County practice. |
| Meaning of "complete plans" for HOA approval under CC&R | "Complete plans" must be as complete as county building‑permit plans; HOA approval is void if plans weren’t permit‑ready. | "Complete plans" means sufficient for the HOA to assess design guideline compliance (aesthetic/material/bulk issues), not necessarily permit‑ready plans. | Court held Heath satisfied the CC&R requirement: plans were complete for HOA review and the HOA properly approved them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pete v. Youngblood, 141 P.3d 629 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (standard for appellate review of discovery rulings)
- Dansie v. Hi‑Country Estates Homeowners Ass'n, 92 P.3d 162 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (deference to trial court factual findings)
- Burns v. Boyden, 133 P.3d 370 (Utah 2006) (advisory committee notes as persuasive guidance for rule interpretation)
- Avalos v. TL Custom, LLC, 330 P.3d 727 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (appellant burden to show discovery error was prejudicial)
- Covey v. Covey, 80 P.3d 553 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (harmless error standard in bench trials)
- Fort Pierce Indus. Park Phases II, III & IV Owners' Ass'n v. Shakespeare, 379 P.3d 1218 (Utah 2016) (restrictive covenants interpreted like contracts)
- WebBank v. American Gen. Annuity Serv. Corp., 54 P.3d 1139 (Utah 2002) (contract ambiguity principles)
- Equitable Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ross, 849 P.2d 1187 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (contract term interpretation)
- Anderson v. Bristol, Inc., 936 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (S.D. Iowa 2013) (federal decisions on sufficiency of non‑retained expert summaries)