Westmont Mirador LLC v. Shurtliff
2014 UT App 184
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- August 6, 2009 Shurtliffs signed a uniform residential rental agreement with Westmont, expiring August 31, 2010.
- Shurtliffs paid a $300 security deposit ($150 refundable, $150 nonrefundable) and a $200 nonrefundable pet fee in 2009.
- Westmont alleged a second October 19, 2009 agreement extended the lease through November 30, 2010, based on a signed document Westmont produced.
- Shurtliffs denied signing the October agreement and challenged the document’s authenticity; the trial court did not determine forgery or validity.
- Trial court awarded Westmont damages under the August agreement, totaling $390.22 after applying the refundable deposit; no prevailing-party fee award given.
- Both Westmont and the Shurtliffs appealed; Sydnie Shurtliff cross-appealed on attorney fees and other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party for attorney fees under contract | Westmont contends it is the prevailing party. | Shurtliffs contend neither party prevailed completely. | No prevailing party; attorney fees denied. |
| Validity of October agreement (signing/forgery) finding | Westmont urged the court to find the October agreement signed/forged. | Shurtliffs argued the document was not valid proof of a new lease. | Trial findings adequate; no finding required; no forgery proven. |
| Rule 11 sanctions against Sydnie | Westmont sought sanctions for untimely motion to alter judgment. | Sydnie argued sanctions were unwarranted or untimely. | Sanctions denied; discretionary ruling affirmed. |
| Shurtliffs' cross-appeal on security deposit allocation | Westmont argued only refundable portion could be returned; nonrefundable portion not refundable. | Shurtliffs urged both refundable and nonrefundable portions (and pet fee) should be treated differently. | Not ambiguous; only refundable portion applied; nonrefundable pet fee not used to satisfy damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giles v. Mineral Res. Int'l, Inc., 2014 UT App 37, 320 P.3d 684 (Utah App. 2014) (flexible, reasoned approach for prevailing party under contract)
- Neff v. Neff, 2011 UT 6, 247 P.3d 380 (Utah 2011) (draws or partial success can foreclose fees)
- A.K. & R. Whipple Plumbing & Heating v. Guy, 2004 UT 47, 94 P.3d 270 (Utah 2004) (considerations for prevailing party in contract disputes)
- Meadowbrook, LLC v. Flower, 959 P.2d 115 (Utah 1998) (waiver of attorney fees upon final judgment entry)
- Patton v. Kirkman, 167 P.2d 282 (Utah 1946) (necessity of findings on material issues)
- Archuleta v. Galetka, 2008 UT 76, 197 P.3d 650 (Utah 2008) (Rule 11 sanctions, discretionary trial-court focus)