Wohnoutka v. Kelley
330 P.3d 762
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Wohnoutka paid for the care/support of Kelley's mother from 2001–2007 and later sued Kelley claiming she orally agreed to repay half, seeking >$108,000.
- Wohnoutka prepared and filed Kelley's tax returns for the relevant years; Kelley claimed her mother as a dependent on those returns.
- At bench trial Wohnoutka introduced evidence of prior dealings, correspondence, and the tax returns to prove an oral loan/contract.
- The district court found the alleged offer terms unclear and acceptance insufficient, concluding Wohnoutka failed to prove a contract; the court dismissed the case.
- On appeal Wohnoutka argued (1) quasi‑estoppel based on Kelley's tax filings, and (2) a contract implied in law (or unjust enrichment).
- The appellate court reviewed the record and oral findings and rejected both arguments as unpreserved because Wohnoutka never presented those legal theories to the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kelley is estopped (quasi‑estoppel) from denying a loan because she claimed her mother as a dependent | Wohnoutka: Kelley's tax returns implicitly acknowledge she paid >half and thus she should be precluded from denying she borrowed funds from him | Kelley: No estoppel; denies a loan/contract existed | Not preserved on appeal; appellate court will not decide because Wohnoutka never presented quasi‑estoppel to the trial court |
| Whether an oral contract existed for repayment of half the support | Wohnoutka: Evidence of dealings, correspondence, and tax returns prove offer, acceptance, and meeting of the minds | Kelley: No clear offer or acceptance; insufficient evidence of contract formation | Trial court found terms unclear and acceptance insufficient; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a contract implied in law (unjust enrichment/quantum meruit) required repayment | Wohnoutka: Claim that Kelley received the benefit and should be required to repay half (implied in law) | Kelley: No such theory was presented at trial; summary judgment had disposed of unjust enrichment earlier | Not preserved; appellate court refused to consider because Wohnoutka did not present this legal theory to the trial court |
| Whether the appellate record supports excusing preservation or merits review despite non‑preservation | Wohnoutka: Presents evidence but not a record citation showing he argued the legal theories below | Kelley: Preservation rules require the trial court have had opportunity to rule; no record of these arguments | Court declines to excuse non‑preservation; issues unpreserved and appeal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (preservation requires the legal claim itself be presented so the trial court can rule)
- Brady v. Park, 302 P.3d 1220 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (preservation principle; trial court should be given opportunity to correct alleged error)
- In re R.B.F.S., 278 P.3d 143 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (defines quasi‑estoppel and its application)
- State v. Calliham, 55 P.3d 573 (Utah 2002) (appellate courts rely on trial court's firsthand observation; preservation aids accurate review)
- Brookside Mobile Home Park, Ltd. v. Peebles, 48 P.3d 968 (Utah 2002) (issue preserved only if presented so trial court had opportunity to rule)
- Doug Jessop Constr., Inc. v. Anderton, 195 P.3d 493 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (trial judge best positioned to assess the proceeding; appellate court should not salvage unpreserved issues)