316 P.3d 992
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Pension Fund and Utah Valley appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment for Westland; the appeal is dismissed as moot.
- Utah Valley assigned its rights against Westland to Pension Fund in 2011, but the district court found the assignment void due to an anti-assignment clause.
- The appellate court explains mootness and that changing circumstances during appeal can render relief impossible or moot.
- QED, Utah Valley's creditor, later purchased Utah Valley's claims against Westland and then Westland acquired them from QED, extinguishing the claims.
- Westland had requested attorney fees below, but the district court did not award them; no cross-appeal was pursued to seek appellate fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot and must be dismissed | Pension Fund/Utah Valley contend relief is possible | Westland argues mootness due to extinguished claims | Yes, moot; the claims are extinguished and relief impossible |
| Effect of the anti-assignment clause on Utah Valley's claims | Assignment to Pension Fund should allow claims | Anti-assignment clause renders assignment void | Assignmentvoid; claims not enforceable against Westland |
| Waiver of issues not raised in opening brief | Issues raised in reply brief should be considered | Waived; only opening brief matters | Waived; not considered |
| Effect of QED purchase and subsequent sale on the claims | Permissible purchase by QED and sale to Westland extinguishes claims | Claims extinguished; no meaningful relief pending | |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Fees should be awarded if error found; cross-appeal needed | Fees not awarded on appeal; no cross-appeal pursuing fees |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lane, 212 P.3d 529 (Utah 2009) (mootness involves whether relief can affect rights)
- Salt Lake County v. Holliday Water Co., 234 P.3d 1105 (Utah 2010) (circumstances can render appeal moot during pendency)
- SME Indus. v. Thompson, 28 P.3d 669 (Utah 2001) (anti-assignment clause affectsability to sue for breach)
- Allen v. Friel, 194 P.3d 903 (Utah 2008) (issues raised in reply brief without opening brief waived)
- In re Estate of Lewis, 738 P.2d 617 (Utah 1987) (cross-appeal prerequisite for affirmative relief)
- Halladay v. Cluff, 739 P.2d 643 (Utah Ct.App.1987) (cross-appeals properly utilized for grievances with judgment)
- Applied Med. Techs., Inc. v. Eames, 44 P.3d 699 (Utah 2002) (defendant may purchase claims pending against itself and move to dismiss)