Wilson v. Sanders
2019 UT App 126
| Utah Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Gary Wilson (Plaintiff) lived with and cared for his elderly mother from 2000; she executed a 2006 revocable trust naming Gary and his sister (Elisabeth Sanders) equal beneficiaries.
- In 2015 the mother suffered a serious head injury that impaired speech and cognition; thereafter defendants (Elisabeth and her husband Hiram) became more involved in her affairs.
- Defendants moved the mother into a hotel for six weeks, restricted her communications, and later had her execute successive trust amendments: first shifting shares, then (while Gary was cut off) executing a later trust that disinherited Gary entirely.
- Gary alleged undue influence to invalidate the third trust and brought an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim based on defendants’ conduct; after a three-day jury trial the jury invalidated the third trust and awarded Gary compensatory and punitive damages (totaling $170,000).
- Defendants moved post-trial under rule 60 and then appealed; the trial court denied the rule 60 motion and entered final judgment. The Court of Appeals reviews challenges to sufficiency of evidence, directed verdict denial, admission/preservation of testimony objections, and seeks attorney fees under Rule 33.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for IIED | Gary: evidence shows outrageous conduct, intent to cause distress, severe distress, and proximate cause | Elisabeth/Hiram: evidence insufficient to support IIED verdict | Affirmed — record contains competent evidence on each IIED element; defendants failed to marshal contrary evidence on appeal |
| Sufficiency and excessiveness of punitive damages | Gary: punitive award justified by defendants’ conduct; ratio acceptable | Defendants: punitive award unsupported and constitutionally excessive | Affirmed — punitive award supported by evidence; 150,000 to 20,000 is 7.5:1, within single-digit constitutional guidance |
| Denial of directed verdict on undue influence | Gary: evidence (mother’s injury, seclusion, isolation, and trust changes) supports undue influence | Defendants: no competent evidence to show undue influence | Affirmed — viewing evidence in favor of Gary, competent evidence supported jury verdict |
| Appealability of denial of Rule 60 motion | Gary: (respondent) notice of appeal from final judgment suffices for related orders | Defendants: challenge trial court’s denial of the Rule 60 motion | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to that order — defendants did not specifically identify the post-judgment Rule 60 order in the notice of appeal and it was entered after final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Fairfax Realty, Inc., 82 P.3d 1064 (Utah 2003) (standard for reciting facts in light most favorable to jury verdict)
- Water & Energy Sys. Tech., Inc. v. Keil, 48 P.3d 888 (Utah 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Crookston v. Fire Ins. Exch., 817 P.2d 789 (Utah 1991) (appellate marshaling requirement when challenging sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Nielsen, 326 P.3d 645 (Utah 2014) (failure to marshal evidence is highly prejudicial though not automatic default)
- Hatch v. Davis, 102 P.3d 774 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (elements of IIED in Utah)
- Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (single-digit punitive-to-compensatory ratio guidance)
- Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency, 977 P.2d 474 (Utah 1999) (notice-of-appeal specificity is jurisdictional)
- Zions First Nat’l Bank v. Rocky Mountain Irrigation, Inc., 931 P.2d 142 (Utah 1997) (appeal from final judgment may encompass earlier interlocutory orders that merge into the judgment)