Timothy v. Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard Moss, 456 P.3d 731

Paul and Janice Timothy obtained a $76,451.17 judgment (plus fees) against Thomas and Teri Keetch in 2009 but were unable to collect.
The Keetches deposited $50,000 (drawn from a minor’s account) into attorney Brennan Moss’s firm IOLTA (PADRM); some funds were later used by the Keetches for a house down payment.
The Timothys served a writ of garnishment on PADRM; PADRM initially avoided service and, by the time served, the funds had been moved out of the IOLTA.
The Timothys sued PADRM and Moss under the Utah Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), alleging fraudulent transfer; PADRM moved for partial summary judgment arguing it was not a “transferee.”
The district court granted summary judgment for PADRM applying a dominion-and-control test; the Timothys appealed, but their underlying judgment expired (8‑year term) and a district court denied their late renewal motion as untimely.
The Utah Supreme Court held the Timothys’ UFTA claim moot because, with the judgment expired, they were no longer creditors entitled to UFTA remedies; it vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and left the district court judgment intact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PADRM is a “transferee” under the UFTA	PADRM received/held Keetch funds in its IOLTA and therefore is a transferee liable under UFTA	PADRM lacked dominion or control over client funds in its trust account and thus is not a transferee	Court did not reach the merits; district court judgment in PADRM’s favor remains; appellate opinion vacated as moot
Whether expiration of the underlying judgment moots the UFTA claim	Porenta means creditor status is required only at filing, so expiration during litigation shouldn’t automatically moot the UFTA claim; relief against transferee would still affect rights	UFTA remedies are available only to a “creditor” (a person with a claim/right to payment); with the judgment expired Timothys are not creditors and cannot obtain UFTA remedies	Claim is moot: judgment expired → no creditor status → no remedy under UFTA; Timothys’ claim dismissed
Whether mootness exception (public interest/recurrence/evade review) applies	Transferee definition affects public interest and may recur; thus court should decide despite mootness	Issue is not inherently short-lived or unavoidable on appeal; parties could have preserved review by timely renewing judgment	Exception does not apply; case remains moot and merits are not decided

Porenta v. Porenta, 416 P.3d 487 (Utah 2017) (UFTA requires an ongoing debtor–creditor relationship at time the UFTA claim is filed)
Teamsters Local 222 v. Utah Transit Auth., 424 P.3d 892 (Utah 2018) (when case becomes moot before final adjudication, vacatur and dismissal are proper)
State v. Legg, 417 P.3d 592 (Utah 2018) (mootness may prevent courts from reaching merits)
Salt Lake County v. Holliday Water Co., 234 P.3d 1105 (Utah 2010) (an appeal is moot if the requested relief cannot affect litigants’ rights)
Parker v. Livingston, 817 So.2d 554 (Miss. 2002) (expiration of judgments does not necessarily moot a UFTA claim where underlying debt remains)
RRR, Inc. v. Toggas, 98 F. Supp. 3d 12 (D.D.C. 2015) (once a judgment is extinguished as a matter of law, a fraudulent-transfer action based on that judgment is extinguished)