537 P.3d 273
Utah Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2004 Schwab opened a Zions bank account, overdrew it, and entered a 2005 court-approved settlement acknowledging debt and payment terms; Schwab defaulted.
- The court entered an original judgment in October 2005 for $6,126.95 (principal, interest, attorney fees, costs) with 18% interest on principal and allowance to augment for collection costs/fees.
- Zions renewed the judgment once in 2013 under the Renewals of Judgment Act; the renewed judgment increased the balance to $12,991.46.
- In 2021 Zions sought a second renewal; the district court refused, reasoning the Act requires filing before the statute of limitations on the “original judgment” expires and that that limitations period had already expired in 2013.
- Schwab did not oppose on appeal; the Court of Appeals applied a reduced standard (prima facie showing) and reversed, ordering the district court to allow the second renewal but issuing a non‑precedential, non‑merits disposition.
- The Court of Appeals awarded Zions reasonable appellate attorney fees under the Deposit Agreement and directed the district court to quantify and augment the judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Renewals of Judgment Act permits multiple renewals by extending both the judgment’s duration and its statute of limitations | Renewal “renews the original judgment” — meaning it makes it "like new" and extends the statute of limitations; nothing in the Act caps renewals | The statute of limitations on the original judgment expired after the first eight‑year period; renewing duration does not extend that original limitations period, so a second renewal is untimely | Court of Appeals: Reversed district court and remanded to allow second renewal (non‑merits decision because appellee did not brief opposing arguments) |
Key Cases Cited
- AL-IN Partners, LLC v. LifeVantage Corp., 496 P.3d 76 (Utah 2021) (allows reversal on appeal when appellant makes a prima facie showing of a plausible basis for reversal and appellee fails to brief)
- Gildea v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 347 P.3d 385 (Utah 2015) (held a renewed judgment relates back to and extends the life of the original judgment and associated liens)
- Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P’ship, 267 P.3d 863 (Utah 2011) (questions of statutory interpretation reviewed for correctness)
- Mitchell v. Arco Indus. Sales, 533 P.3d 394 (Utah Ct. App. 2023) (applied AL‑IN prima facie standard and issued a non‑merits reversal where appellee failed to brief)
- Broderick v. Apartment Mgmt. Consultants, LLC, 279 P.3d 391 (Utah 2012) (hesitancy to decide novel issues without adversarial briefing)
- Porenta v. Porenta, 416 P.3d 487 (Utah 2017) (cautions against addressing first‑impression issues without adequate briefing)
- Farman‑Rava v. Blu Auto Transport LLC, 498 P.3d 24 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (appellee’s failure to brief does not automatically require reversal)
- State v. Sorbonne, 462 P.3d 409 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (aff’d 2022 UT 5) (appellee’s omission is not a confession of error)
- Grand County v. Rogers, 44 P.3d 734 (Utah 2002) (court of appeals’ precedential practices discussed)
- Utah Dep’t of Social Services v. Adams, 806 P.2d 1193 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (prevailing party entitled to attorney fees on appeal when contract provides for fees)
- Management Services Corp. v. Development Assocs., 617 P.2d 406 (Utah 1980) (contractual fee provisions include fees incurred on appeal)