Turley v. Childs, 515 P.3d 942

In 2008 the Childs owned ~2,600 acres and granted Turley an option/right of first refusal to purchase; terms were recited on the record at trial in 2014 and memorialized in an unsigned handwritten memorandum. Key terms: an eight‑month marketing period, 60‑day notice to Turley of any bona fide offer, and if no sale then Turley could buy at an appraised price; appraisal process to follow a two‑appraiser/third‑appraiser method and "yellow book" standards.
The parties professed the agreement on the record and intended to formalize it, but never executed a written settlement; they nevertheless acted under it (marketing the property, selecting appraisers).
No third‑party offers were received; appraisers selected a third appraiser who valued the property at $1.618 million and Turley tendered a cashier's check for that amount.
The Childs filed multiple bankruptcy petitions timed near hearings, delaying proceedings. After dismissal of the bankruptcies, Turley filed a second suit seeking declaratory relief and specific performance; the Childs proceeded pro se and failed to complete discovery or timely oppose summary judgment.
The district court denied the Childs' motion to extend deadlines (finding no excusable neglect and a pattern of bad‑faith bankruptcy filings), treated Turley’s summary judgment motion as unopposed, and granted summary judgment ordering specific performance. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the Childs' motion to reset deadlines (excusable neglect under Rule 6)	Turley: denial proper because Childs showed no diligence and used bankruptcy filings to delay; bad faith.	Childs: pro se status and filings reflect excusable neglect; should be allowed to file belated opposition.	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; pattern/timing of bankruptcy filings and lack of diligence supported denial.
Whether the oral settlement (recited on the record + unsigned memo) was an enforceable, sufficiently definite agreement	Turley: on‑record recitation and parties' conduct show a binding settlement with essential terms.	Childs: agreement was preliminary and not binding until reduced to a formal writing.	Affirmed — oral settlement was binding and definite enough to enforce.
Whether Turley’s unopposed summary judgment papers established entitlement to relief (timely exercise of option; appraisal compliance with "yellow book")	Turley: no offers received; appraisal process followed; appraisal report and tendered funds satisfied the Agreement.	Childs: alleged delays and argued appraisal may not meet "yellow book" standards.	Affirmed — because the motion was unopposed the facts set forth were deemed admitted and Turley’s voluminous supporting materials showed entitlement; Childs’ objections were waived for failure to oppose.

Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (movant bearing burden at trial must establish each element to get summary judgment)
Tronson v. Eagar, 457 P.3d 407 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (unopposed summary judgment cannot be entered automatically; court must examine movant's papers)
Jones v. Layton/Okland, 214 P.3d 859 (Utah 2009) (excusable neglect inquiry is equitable; diligence required)
Reisbeck v. HCA Health Servs. of Utah, Inc., 2 P.3d 447 (Utah 2000) (defines excusable neglect as neglect excused by special circumstances)
West v. Grand County, 942 P.2d 337 (Utah 1997) (factors for excusable neglect are relevant but not exclusive)
Patterson v. Knight, 391 P.3d 1075 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (oral settlement agreements enforceable when essential terms are definite)
Smith ex rel. Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419 (7th Cir. 1997) (even when facts are deemed admitted for unopposed motion, reasonable inferences must be drawn for nonmovant)