October 2024
Appellate Highlights
Rodney R. Parker, Dani Cepernich, Robert Cummings, and Andrew Roth
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following appellate cases of interest were recently decided by the Utah Supreme Court, Utah Court of Appeals, and United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The following summaries have been prepared by the authoring attorneys listed above, who are solely responsible for their content.
trust depends on "context."
The court considered several factors in deciding whether the attorneys in this case represented a trust, including the role of the attorneys in administration of the trust, the source of payment for the attorneys' services (whether from trust funds or the trustee's own funds), and the language of the engagement letter.
Utah Supreme Court
Bennion v. Stolrow
2024 UT 14 (May 16, 2024)
In this personal injury action, the parties reached a settlement of $150,000 and signed an agreement reflecting that amount. When it came time to pay, the defendant stated he would issue the settlement amount in two checks - one to the plaintiff and one to a collection agency that held a healthcare lien on any settlement funds. The plaintiff balked at the proposed distribution and moved to enforce the settlement agreement, asking for a single check issued to him alone. The district court declined to order issuance of a single check, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. On certiorari, the Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of the parties' settlement agreement required payment to the plaintiff alone. Per the agreement, the plaintiff was expressly responsible for any lien and would be required to indemnify the defendant if the lien spawned litigation.
In re Estate of Goldberg
2024 UT 15 (June 6, 2024)
Previously, in Snow Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 2013 UT 15, 299 P.3d 1058, the Utah Supreme Court held that an attorney may form an attorney-client relationship with a trust. In this case, the supreme court clarified that an attorney who represents a trustee in his or her official capacity does not necessarily also represent the trust itself. Instead, whether an attorney who represents trustees in their official capacity also represents the held that the Governmental Immunity Act does not waive immunity for intentional acts of government employees based on the "fraud or willful misconduct" language in the Act. Rather, the language is an exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the Act.
Utah Law Deveopments
State v. Oreilly
2024 UT App 79 (May 23, 2024)
The criminal defendant appealed her conviction, arguing that she was denied her constitutional right to counsel and is entitled to a new trial because her trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest because he represented both her...
