Case Information
*1
T HE U TAH C OURT OF A PPEALS S PRING G ARDENS I NC ., Appellant, v.
S ECURITY T ITLE I NSURANCE A GENCY OF U TAH I NC ., Appellee.
Opinion No. 20140932-CA Filed May 26, 2016 Second District Court, Farmington Department The Honorable David M. Connors No. 090700494
L. Miles LeBaron and John A. Snow, Attorneys for Appellant
Troy L. Booher, Clemens A. Landau, Paul M. Halliday Jr., and Benjamin J. Mann, Attorneys for Appellee
J UDGE G REGORY K. O RME authored this Opinion, in which J UDGE S TEPHEN L. R OTH and S ENIOR J UDGE R USSELL W. B ENCH concurred.
ORME, Judge: Spring Gardens Inc. appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Security Title Insurance Agency of Utah Inc. on a claim of negligence against Security Title and the 1. Senior Judge Russell W. Bench sat by special assignment as authorized by law. See generally Utah R. Jud. Admin. 11-201(6). district court’s denials of Spring Gardens’ separate rule 56(f) motion for additional time to conduct discovery and its rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment decision. The instant case arises from the fact that Security Title did not record a trust deed securing a debt in favor of Spring Gardens. We affirm.
BACKGROUND In 2006, Spring Gardens lent a substantial sum of money
to Blaine and Jessie Johnson, secured by a first-position lien on a parcel of real property (the Burmester property). By March 7, 2008, the Johnsons still owed Spring Gardens approximately $85,000. Hoping to expedite repayment of the loan, on that day Spring Gardens signed a new agreement (1) requiring the Johnsons to pay the debt in full within thirty days and (2) subordinating Spring Gardens’ first-position lien on the Burmester property to two other interests of record. This new agreement was further secured by a trust deed intended to be in a first-priority position on two additional parcels of real property (the Skull Valley property). After both parties signed the agreement and trust deed, Spring Gardens deposited the documents with Security Title. A short time later, however, Spring Gardens, in lieu of
closing on the new agreement, chose to accept a payment as consideration for its subordination on the Burmester property. No closing having occurred, Security Title never recorded the Skull Valley trust deed, meaning Spring Gardens had no recorded interest in the Skull Valley property. Security Title did, however, record the subordination of Spring Gardens’ interest in the Burmester property. As a result, when the Johnsons 2. Rule 56 was reorganized effective May 1, 2016. The former rule 56(f) is now rule 56(d)(2). We refer in this opinion to the rule as written when the district court considered Spring Gardens’ motion.
defaulted, Spring Gardens had no recorded interest in the Skull Valley property and its interest in the Burmester property was subordinated to recorded interests in favor of two other parties, whose combined claims exceeded the value of the property. Spring Gardens sued both the Johnsons and Security Title; the instant appeal concerns only the latter.
¶4 In its complaint, Spring Gardens repeatedly declared that a closing occurred and that Security Title therefore had a duty to record the Skull Valley trust deed. During discovery, Security Title sought various admissions from Spring Gardens that contradicted the facts as stated in Spring Gardens’ complaint, including an admission that no closing actually occurred and that Security Title never received verbal or written instruction from Spring Gardens to record the trust deed. Because Spring Gardens never denied or otherwise responded to these requests, it was deemed to have admitted the truth of these statements. See Utah R. Civ. P. 36(b)(1). Security Title seized upon this opportunity to end the suit and moved for summary judgment on the ground that Spring Gardens’ admissions refuted the factual predicate of its claim, i.e., because a closing did not occur and no instructions to nonetheless record were given, no duty to record could be triggered by the “closing” alleged in the complaint or on the basis of separate instructions. In its opposition to summary judgment, Spring Gardens
argued that Security Title was required to produce evidence establishing the appropriate standard of care and to further demonstrate that its conduct did not violate that standard. Spring Gardens also filed a rule 56(f) motion seeking additional time for further discovery and to consult industry experts. Although Spring Gardens also expressed an intent to file a motion to amend or withdraw its admissions, it never did. Security Title responded by reiterating its argument that the deemed-undisputed facts effectively foreclosed Spring Gardens’ negligence claim as set forth in its complaint. The district court agreed with Security Title that where a
closing had not occurred and instructions to record had not been given, Spring Gardens could not prove that Security Title had a duty to record as alleged in its complaint. Thus, the district court granted summary judgment to Security Title. The district court also denied Spring Gardens’ rule 56(f) motion because Spring Gardens conducted no further discovery after Security Title filed its motion for summary judgment and because Spring Gardens presented no contrary evidence in opposing summary judgment. Six months after summary judgment was granted to Security Title, Spring Gardens filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion included the new arguments that Security Title had a statutorily implied obligation to record the trust deed and that a course of dealing existed between Spring Gardens and Security Title prior to the incident in question in which Security Title had always recorded deeds without specific written instructions to do so. A motion to amend the complaint did not accompany the motion for reconsideration, even though the only claim set forth in the complaint was tied specifically to the closing allegedly superintended by Security Title. After taking the matter under advisement, the district
court issued a written decision in which it denied Spring Gardens’ motion for reconsideration. The court explained that to the extent Spring Gardens was presenting new evidence, it had given the court no indication why such evidence could not have been produced in a timely fashion. Furthermore, the court determined that “given *Spring Gardens’] deemed admissions and Security Title’s supporting affidavits, [Security Title had] no duty . . . as a matter of law.” The court concluded, therefore, that no “manifest injustice *would+ result *to Spring Gardens+ absent reconsideration.” The court also rejected Spring Gardens’ argument that its failure to conduct any discovery between “the filing of Security Title’s Motion for Summary Judgment and oral arguments” was not dilatory because it did not have sufficient time to peruse Security Title’s affidavits. Instead, the court found that Spring Gardens “had approximately six months to conduct discovery and adduce material facts to preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of Security Title,” during the interval between the filing of and the hearing on Security Title’s motion for summary judgment. Finally, the court rejected Spring Gardens’ argument that the issue of Security Title’s duty was inadequately briefed by Security Title. Spring Gardens appeals.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶9 Spring Gardens challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Security Title. “We review the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment for correctness, granting no deference to the district court.” Commercial Real Estate Inv., LC v. Comcast of Utah II, Inc. , 2012 UT 49, ¶ 14, 285 P.3d 1193 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Spring Gardens also questions the district court’s rejection
of its motion for reconsideration of the district court’s summary
judgment decision and its rule 56(f) motion for additional time in
which to conduct discovery. “We review a district court’s
decision to deny a motion to reconsider a summary judgment
decision for an abuse of discretion.”
Koerber v. Mismash
, 2015 UT
App 237, ¶ 15,
ANALYSIS Two roads were open to Security Title in its pursuit of
summary
judgment. First, it could have established the
applicable standard of care and demonstrated that it satisfied the
standard as a matter of law.
See, e.g.
,
RJW Media, Inc. v. CIT
Group/Consumer Fin., Inc.
,
amended complaint, Security Title had a duty to record the deed
“following the closing.” That Spring Gardens believed the duty
to record was premised upon a closing having occurred—and
that its negligence claim against Security Title was premised
upon such a closing—is repeated several times within its
complaint. But as Spring Gardens admitted by failing to deny
Security Title’s requested admissions, a closing never occurred. 4. Even if true, as Spring Gardens claimed below, that the
outcome of this case was skewed by “the technicality of deemed
admissions,” the text of rule 36 is quite clear: a “matter is
admitted unless, within 28 days after service of the request, the
responding party serves upon the requesting party a written
response.” Utah R. Civ. P. 36(b)(1). There is no question that
Spring Gardens failed to respond to Security Title’s request for
admissions within twenty-eight days (or, indeed, ever). And
while Spring Gardens indicated that it would, at some point, file
a “Motion to Withdraw or Amend these Admissions,” it never
did, although it belatedly filed a motion for reconsideration—
one that raised new arguments. “[T]rial courts are under no
obligation to consider motions for reconsideration,’”
Tschaggeny
v. Milbank Ins. Co.,
(continued…) A claim explicitly premised upon the existence of a fact later admitted not to exist by the party making the claim is a weak claim indeed. See id. ¶¶ 2, 5. Furthermore, Spring Gardens had months to amend its complaint or seek to withdraw the admissions in question, but it never did. In sum, because of Spring Gardens’ admissions that no
closing occurred and that no instructions of any kind were given to Security Title directing it to record the trust deed, Security Title could not have a duty to record premised upon the occurrence of such a closing and the giving of such instructions. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment to Security Title. And under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Spring Gardens additional time for discovery because additional discovery time would have been of no benefit to Spring Gardens (…continued)
arguments were not preserved for appeal.
Cf. Burdick v. Horner
Townsend & Kent, Inc.
,
New appellate counsel for Spring Gardens raised several
additional and interesting arguments during oral argument,
such as whether Security Title had some lesser duty to notify
Spring Gardens that it had not recorded the trust deed or at least
to return the unrecorded trust deed to Spring Gardens after it
became clear that a closing would not occur, which would have
served as timely notice to Spring Gardens that its trust deed had
not been recorded. We decline to address those arguments
because they were not preserved—or even briefed.
See, e.g.
,
Patterson v. Patterson
,
given its deemed admissions and because, in any event, Spring
Gardens had not availed itself of the ample time it already had
for discovery. And “the trial court need not grant rule 56(f)
motions that are dilatory.”
Crossland Sav. v. Hatch
,
¶14 Spring Gardens never took appropriate steps to withdraw the admissions that refuted the central tenets of its claim against Security Title or to justify its dilatory actions during discovery. Absent such a withdrawal, the introduction of contrary evidence, the amendment of its original complaint to add new claims against Security Title, or some justification for Spring Gardens’ delays in pursuit of its suit, the district court had nothing new to consider, so it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to decline to reconsider its summary judgment decision.
CONCLUSION Spring Gardens undercut its own negligence claim
against Security Title through its deemed admissions. And rather than respond by amending its complaint, filing a motion to withdraw its admissions, or timely making the new arguments put forth in its motion for reconsideration or ably argued by new appellate counsel, Spring Gardens chose not to conduct further discovery and not to submit any evidence in support of its position. The record establishes that Spring Gardens had ample time and opportunity to conduct discovery and to deny Security Title’s requests for admissions if they were not warranted, but it did not do so. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to rescue Spring Gardens from its own dilatory behavior , and the district court further did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider Spring Gardens’ new claims raised in its motion for reconsideration. Affirmed.