Case Information
*1 _________________________________________________________
T HE U TAH C OURT OF A PPEALS
S UNDIAL I NC ., Plaintiff Appellant, v.
T HE V ILLAGES AT W OLF H OLLOW C ONDOMINIUM H OMEOWNER ’ S A SSOCIATION I NC ., Defendant Appellee. Memorandum Decision No.
Filed September
Third District, West Jordan Department Honorable Mark S. Kouris
No.
James T. Dunn, Attorney for Appellant Alan R. Stewart, Attorney for Appellee
J UDGE C AROLYN B. M C H UGH authored Memorandum Decision, J UDGES J AMES Z. D AVIS S TEPHEN L. R OTH
concurred.
McHUGH, Judge:
¶1 (Sundial) appeals judgment awarding it for ground failed include We affirm. underlying for equitable relief relates The Hollow development, sixty four unit
condominium project (the Project) Salt Lake County. The original developer Aurora Development, LC (Aurora). September recorded declaration bylaws what later became
Sundial Villages at Wolf Hollow Condominium Homeowner’s Association, (the HOA). July Sundial purchased the last thirty four units the Project that remained unsold, well as two undeveloped building pads. At that time, was insolvent and unable to finish construction of the Project. Sundial wrote five checks totaling $44,500 to the HOA between December June A portion these payments was to cover monthly assessments the Sundial large additional sum to ensure the Project’s survival. After completion Project, dispute arose between Sundial the HOA over treatment these payments.
¶4 On February Sundial filed complaint alleging HOA had unjustly enriched by payments and requesting $44,500 plus HOA filed an answer counterclaim alleging that Sundial failed pay certain dues, fees, other assessments. Subsequently, Sundial amended requested its enrichment $30,064.66 plus order reflect dues, fees, other assessments that were properly paid HOA.
¶5 After bench trial, issued its memorandum decision found “paid significantly more than monthly fees [it] was required pay” understanding “the Project brink failure.” found excess funds ensured completion Project, thereby preventing liens from being recorded and avoiding foreclosure. Consequently, awarded $5,403 its claim. In amount, first Sundial’s overpayments were made, least part, own benefit. Thus, adopted formula isolate unjustly HOA itself. method selected multiply total payment figure $44,500 47%, represents percentage units
Sundial v. not owned Sundial. From remaining $20,915, court subtracted $15,512 in fees properly charged Sundial, resulting in final damage award $5,403. ¶6 After issued its memorandum decision, counsel for Sundial submitted a proposed form judgment, which included prejudgment interest rate 10%. Although HOA filed an objection proposed judgment, entered it on July 27, 2012. However, scheduled oral arguments HOA’s objection for October 30, HOA argued prejudgment interest was inappropriate because a specific award foreseeable or mathematically certain until made final ruling how unjust HOA would be calculated. Sundial claimed correctly prejudgment interest HOA be with certainty based specific amounts dates. HOA’s arguments persuasive set aside original judgment in favor an amended judgment did not include prejudgment interest. filed a timely notice appeal amended judgment.
¶7
only issue raises appeal is whether trial
erred failing prejudgment “A trial
court’s decision grant or deny interest presents a
question law which we review for correctness.”
Cornia Wilcox
,
chose action shall 10% per annum.” Utah Code Ann.
§ 15 1 ‐ 1(2) (LexisNexis 2009). does dispute its
claim HOA a “chose action.”
Snow, Nuffer, Engstrom & Drake Tanasse
(“A ‘chose action’ has defined ‘a debt
upon recovery may made lawsuit. It is a present
possession, but merely right sue; it becomes “possessory
thing” only upon successful completion lawsuit.’” (quoting
*4
at Barron’s Law Dictionary
71 (3d ed. 1991))). However, an of
prejudgment interest pursuant section 15 ‐ 1 ‐ 1(2) is not automatic.
Prejudgment interest is appropriate only “when loss ha[s] been
fixed as definite time amount loss can be
calculated with mathematical accuracy in accordance with
well ‐ established rules damages.”
Iron Head Constr., Inc. v.
Gurney
,
court’s ruling. Tellingly, enrichment $30,064.66 before trial, yet awarded only $5,403. This discrepancy occurred, large part, there are no “well established rules” conferred HOA. See Iron Head 2009 ¶ 11 (citation internal quotation marks omitted). judge “left determine mere description the” benefits opposed those conferred HOA. id (citation internal quotation marks omitted). making assessment, considered entire factual record, including “Sundial had financial stake [P]roject needed keep it viable sell condominium it purchased,” Sundial’s sole shareholder wanted *5 Project survive his son resident, and Sundial’s sole shareholder intended market the units as investment opportunities his friends and former real estate clients. trial then carefully considered the benefit other residents of the the absence Sundial’s payments, would likely have defaulted its construction loan, resulting liens the Project, unfinished common areas amenities, the devaluation of all of units. Based assessment of this evidence, the determined some of the overpayments were mutually beneficial therefore the full amount of those payments could be damage enrichment. ¶10 As result, fashioned methodology to calculate how much of overpayments were benefit HOA. bound use ratio between owned by those owned by other residents allocate by payments between parties. Until selected methodology, amount be ascertained with precision. As correctly noted, “three four different judges could have heard same case maybe come up with different numbers.” Another judge might have concluded full amount overpayment, none it, or some different percentage constituted value unjust enjoyed by HOA. Thus, damage here was determined by broad discretion trier fact. Encon Utah, LLC Fluor Ames Kraemer, LLC (“[L]osses cannot with accuracy are those damage amounts are broad discretion trier fact .” (citation internal quotation marks omitted)).
¶11 Accordingly, correctly denied an Affirmed.