Sweat v. Boeder
2013 UT App 206
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- On Jan 12, 2007 Sweat’s car was struck from behind; she sued on Jan 10, 2011 naming Jess Boeder (Father) as the driver/defendant.
- On Apr 14, 2011 Sweat filed an amended complaint that added Schafer Boeder (Son) in the caption but continued to allege Father was the driver in the body of the pleading.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting Father was not the driver and that the four‑year statute of limitations had expired as to Son, the actual driver.
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss as to Son for failure to state a claim based on the statute of limitations.
- Sweat argued the amended complaint should “relate back” under Utah R. Civ. P. 15(c) via (a) misnomer and (b) identity of interest, preserving her claim against Son.
- The court held neither the misnomer nor identity‑of‑interest exceptions applied because Son was not identified or served within the limitations period and Father and Son did not share the same legal interests/defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relation back under Utah R. Civ. P. 15(c) (misnomer) | Sweat: naming Father was a reasonable misnomer—police form identified Father as driver/owner; captioning error omitted Son in body | Boeder: Son was a different, ascertainable person who was neither identified nor served before the limitations period expired | Court: Not a misnomer; Son was not identified or served and addition is a substantive change, not a technical name defect; no relation back |
| Relation back under identity of interest (Notice Transfer Test) | Sweat: addition of Son relates back because parties had notice and were involved from early stages | Boeder: Father and Son have different legal defenses—Father disputes being driver; Son asserts statute of limitations—no shared legal interest | Court: No identity of interest; defenses and legal positions differ, so no constructive notice and no relation back |
Key Cases Cited
- Penrose v. Ross, 71 P.3d 631 (Utah Ct. App.) (distinguishing misnomer and identity‑of‑interest and denying relation back where parties had different legal defenses)
- Ottens v. McNeil, 239 P.3d 308 (Utah Ct. App.) (describes Notice Transfer Test for constructive notice and identity of interest)
- Tan v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 157 P.3d 367 (Utah Ct. App.) (misnomer doctrine permits correction of technical naming defects when proper party served or identified in complaint body)
- Sulzen v. Williams, 977 P.2d 497 (Utah Ct. App.) (explains identity of interest as early notice or unofficial involvement in proceedings)
- Gary Porter Constr. v. Fox Constr., 101 P.3d 371 (Utah Ct. App.) (standard of review for Rule 15(c) analysis is correctness)