Windsor Mobile Estates, LLC v. Sweazey
2019 UT App 44
| Utah Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Windsor Mobile Estates sued for unlawful detainer against Scott Wilson after unpaid lot rent; Wilson never answered and the court entered restitution.
- Donnie Sweazey intervened claiming he purchased and owned the mobile home on the lot; the court stayed eviction pending determination of ownership.
- Sweazey filed a "third-party" complaint asserting independent claims (ownership, breach, conversion, defamation, conspiracy) against the home sellers and Berry/Affordable Concepts—procedurally improper because these were not derivative claims under Rule 14.
- Despite the court indicating an evidentiary hearing was needed, no party properly moved for one or filed the required Requests to Submit; many motions were filed but the case stalled for years.
- Windsor and Berry moved to dismiss Sweazey’s pleading for failure to prosecute under Rule 41; the district court granted the motion, denied Sweazey’s Rule 59 motion, but allowed Sweazey to remove the mobile home.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sweazey) | Defendant's Argument (Windsor/Berry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court’s freeze of the mobile home was void for lack of jurisdiction | The freeze/order was void | Court had jurisdiction to preserve status quo until ownership resolved | Court did not reach jurisdictional merits because issue was inadequately briefed; appeal waived |
| Whether summary judgment was improperly denied | No genuine dispute of material fact; entitlement to judgment | Factual disputes and procedural defects existed | Court declined to review on merits due to inadequate briefing by Sweazey |
| Whether dismissal for failure to prosecute under Rule 41 was improper | Dismissal was an abuse of discretion and caused injustice | Parties stalled, failed to seek evidentiary hearing or follow rules; dismissal appropriate | Affirmed dismissal for failure to prosecute (district court did not abuse discretion); appellate review refused on merits for inadequate briefing |
| Whether denial of Rule 59 motion to alter/amend was erroneous | District court erred in denying relief | Rule 59 motion lacked merit and briefing insufficient | Court refused to consider due to inadequate briefing; appeal waived |
Key Cases Cited
- PDC Consulting, Inc. v. Porter, 196 P.3d 626 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (sets five-factor framework for Rule 41 dismissal for failure to prosecute)
- Department of Social Services v. Romero, 609 P.2d 1323 (Utah 1980) (dismissal for failure to prosecute rests within trial court’s discretion)
- State v. Green, 99 P.3d 820 (Utah 2004) (appellate briefing rules and the appellate court’s discretion to refuse merits review for inadequate briefing)
- State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299 (Utah 1998) (reviewing courts will not address inadequately briefed issues)