Shurtleff v. United Effort Plan Trust, 289 P.3d 408

The probate court ordered the State to make an interim payment of the Special Fiduciary's administration fees for the UEP Trust; the State challenged.
UEP Trust originated as a FLDS Church charitable trust reform, with the Special Fiduciary administering it since 2005 and paying costs from trust assets initially.
Litigation and asset liquidation delays prevented timely payment of fees; Berry Knoll Farm was targeted for sale to fund administration, with stays and negotiations ongoing.
The Utah Attorney General advocated for interim payments in 2011, but later opposed them unless court-ordered; a settlement proposal favored FLDS interests and lacked a payment plan for the Fiduciary.
In 2012 the probate court approved most fee requests after objections and issued an order that the State pay the approved amounts, with potential contribution from other parties later.
The State sought reconsideration, extensions, and contribution motions, all of which the probate court denied or found not ripe; the State appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the interim fee award under § 75-7-1004(1) was proper	State contends the court abused discretion or misapplied § 1004(1).	Special Fiduciary argues justice and equity require payment from the State to avoid unjust burden.	Yes; interim payment proper under § 1004(1).
Whether the amount of fees awarded was an abuse of discretion	State claims overbroad objections and improper reductions.	Fiduciary justifies fees; objections were carefully considered and reduced only where not properly incurred.	No; amount properly awarded after scrutiny.
Whether the constitutional challenges to the fee award were preserved and meritorious	State asserts separation-of-powers and credit-extension issues.	Plain error review declines preservation; arguments fail on the merits.	Unpersuasive; no plain error.
Whether the denial of the State's motion for contribution from Arizona was correct	State seeks contribution from Arizona for proportionate payment.	Equitable allocation not ripe; contribution requires payment by the demander and is premature.	Yes; denial affirmed as unripe.
Whether the court properly applied or balanced related equitable considerations	State contends results undermine state fiduciary appointments.	Court weighed equities; Utah AG actions undermined Fiduciary; court correct to proceed despite state posture.	Yes; equities supported interim payment.

Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Lindberg, 238 P.3d 1054 (Utah 2010) (context of UEP Trust reform and charitable status)
Jeffs v. Stubbs, 970 P.2d 1234 (Utah 1998) (private vs charitable trust status of UEP Trust)
Garwood v. Garwood, 233 P.3d 977 (Wyo. 2010) (factors for 'justice and equity' in fee awards)
Atwood v. Atwood, 25 P.3d 936 (Okla.Civ.App.2001) (criteria for determining justice and equity in fee awards)
Klinkerfuss v. Cronin, 289 S.W.3d 607 (Mo.Ct.App.2009) (statutory interpretation of § 1004-like provisions in fees context)
Somers, In re Estate of, 277 Kan. 761 (Kan. 2004) (deference to trustees' fee allocations under 1004-like statutes)
Gardner v. Bean, 677 P.2d 1116 (Utah 1984) (definition of contribution/offset mechanism)
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. v. Utah Dept. of Health, 2002 UT 5 (Utah 2002) (lending of credit and state obligation principles)
State v. Pliego, 1999 UT 8 (Utah 1999) (record consideration and preservation of issues on appeal)
Meadow Valley Contractors, Inc. v. State Dep't of Transp., 2011 UT 35 (Utah 2011) (plain error framework preservation)
State v. Low, 2008 UT 58 (Utah 2008) (definition of obvious error in plain error review)