Smith v. Simas
324 P.3d 667
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Lloyd and Laurie Smith (Smiths) own Lot 15 in Sandstone Cove and sued Timothy and Christy Simas (Simases) after the Simases built a house on adjacent Lot 13 allegedly in violation of the subdivision CC&Rs.
- The Simases obtained HOA and municipal approvals and a Park City building permit; Park City later issued and maintained a stop-work order based on an 85% main-floor-to-basement plat restriction until the Simases revised plans to comply, after which work resumed.
- The Smiths filed suit asserting breach of the CC&Rs and sought damages, injunctive abatement, nominal damages, and attorney fees; a jury found three CC&R violations but that those breaches were not material, so it awarded no damages.
- The trial court denied the Smiths’ post-trial request for an injunction, denied nominal damages, and declined to award attorney fees to either party (but awarded limited fees to the Smiths for a discovery dispute).
- On appeal, the court reviewed whether the injunction denial was an abuse of discretion, whether the special-verdict form was erroneous, and whether either party was the prevailing party for fee purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (Simas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether injunction to abate CC&R violations was required/should have been granted | Once breach was proven, injunction to abate was mandatory under CC&Rs (Sections 12.1–12.2) | Court should balance equities; injunction not appropriate where defendant acted innocently and remedy is disproportionate | Court affirmed denial: equitable balancing (innocent violation, disproportionate cost, damages adequate, no irreparable harm) justified refusing injunction |
| Whether the special-verdict form wrongly required a finding of materiality before damages | Materiality is not a prerequisite to monetary damages; jury cutoff was improper | Parties approved the special-verdict form at trial; any error was invited | Court refused to review based on invited-error doctrine; no relief granted |
| Whether nominal damages must be awarded when breaches are technical | Nominal damages required if no actual damages proven | Even if nominal damages appropriate, appellate court generally will not remand for only nominal damages | Court declined remand and affirmed denial of nominal damages |
| Whether either party was the prevailing party entitled to attorney fees under the CC&Rs | Smiths: prevailing because jury found breaches; Simases: prevailing because no damages/relief awarded | Both argued they prevailed under the fee clause | Court affirmed trial court’s discretionary finding that neither party prevailed and therefore no contractual attorney fees on the merits; no appellate fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Ockey v. Lehmer, 189 P.3d 51 (Utah 2008) (availability of equitable remedy reviewed for correctness; application reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Carrier v. Lindquist, 37 P.3d 1112 (Utah 2001) (equitable balancing test for denying injunction for restrictive covenant violations — factors include innocence, disproportionate cost, adequacy of damages, irreparable injury)
- Holmes Dev., LLC v. Cook, 48 P.3d 895 (Utah 2002) (appellate courts generally do not remand solely to award nominal damages)
- Tschaggeny v. Milbank Ins. Co., 168 P.3d 615 (Utah 2007) (invited-error doctrine bars appellate review where party affirmatively approved trial procedure)