Williamson v. Farrell

1

2024 UT App 111

Thomas Williamson and Jennifer Williamson, Appellants, v. Anne Farrell, Dave Farrell, and Laura Black, Appellees.

No. 20221084-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah

August 8, 2024

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Patrick Corum No. 170902215

Erik A. Olson and Christopher D. Ballard, Attorneys for Appellants

John R. Loftus, Christine E. Ellice, J. Mark Gibb, and Matthew J Orme, Attorneys for Appellees

Judge Gregory K. Orme authored this Opinion, in which Judges Ryan M. Harris and John D. Luthy concurred.

ORME JUDGE

¶1 Thomas and Jennifer Williamson (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought an action against Anne Farrell, Dave Farrell, and Laura Black (collectively, Defendants) seeking a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs did not commit elder abuse against Thomas, Anne, and Laura's mother, Ruth Williamson.^[1] By the time of trial, Plaintiffs' action had been limited to five grounds of elder abuse under Utah statute. Of the five grounds, the trial court ruled that Plaintiffs abused Ruth by causing her harm, but it concluded that they did not commit elder abuse under the remaining four statutory grounds it considered, including that of financial exploitation. Because we hold that the trial court only had jurisdiction to adjudicate whether Plaintiffs financially exploited Ruth-and not the other four grounds-we vacate the court's judgment except for its ruling related to financial exploitation. And because our resolution of the jurisdictional issue raises new questions regarding whether Defendants are entitled to attorney fees under Utah's bad faith statute, we remand this matter for the trial court to reconsider Defendants' attorney fees request in light of our resolution of this appeal.

BACKGROUND

First Appeal

¶2 Ruth and George B. Williamson had six children: Thomas George, Anne, Sue, Patricia, and Laura. During their lives Ruth and George B. accumulated substantial assets, including income-producing real property in California and Utah. They executed several estate planning documents, naming their children as beneficiaries in some of them. For over thirty years, Thomas's income has come from his management of the family businesses and assets.

¶3 After George B. passed in 2009, Ruth continued to live in her home of fifty years located in Palos Verdes Estates California. In March 2016, Ruth moved to Utah, where she passed away that November at the age of ninety-one. At the time of her death, Ruth was residing with Plaintiffs in their home.

¶4 In December 2016, Thomas filed a petition in Utah's Fourth District Court (the Probate Action) seeking to formally administer Ruth's estate, of which he claimed to be the rightful personal representative. In February 2017, Anne and Laura objected to the petition, alleging that Thomas was "unsuitable to serve as a personal representative" because he had, among other things, engaged in self-dealing and elder abuse. Concerning the allegations of elder abuse, the objection stated that Anne and Laura were "compiling further evidence that reflects that [Thomas] engaged in elder abuse against [Ruth] while she was living under the laws of the State of California and [they were] addressing that issue with California counsel toward the end of pursuing a formal action in that regard." Shortly afterward, in April 2017, Anne and her husband, Dave, filed declarations in the Probate Action alleging that Thomas had taken Ruth to Utah in March 2016 under false pretenses,isolated her, and prevented her return to California, causing Ruth to suffer from depression as well as mental and emotional anguish. Dave's affidavit mentioned that Jennifer, Thomas's wife, helped block Ruth's communication with other family members.

¶5 Also in April 2017, Plaintiffs filed the current civil action against Defendants in Utah's Third District Court seeking "[a] declaratory judgment that [they] did not commit elder abuse against Ruth Williamson, [they] did not violate any statutory or common law duties owed to Ruth Williamson, and [Defendants] have no actionable claim against [them] pertaining in any way to Ruth Williamson."

¶6 Less than a week after Plaintiffs filed the current action, Defendants commenced an action in California against Plaintiffs and eleven others (the California Action). That complaint alleged, among other things, elder abuse, elder financial abuse, and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to the care of Ruth and her estate. Jennifer was eventually dismissed as a defendant in the California Action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

¶7 Later, in the current action, the district court granted judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint based on common-law efficiency grounds and its determination that a declaratory judgment "would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding." Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-404 (LexisNexis 2022).^[2] Specifically, the court stated that "a judgment in this case would not conclude the litigation in the other cases." The court further noted that "there has been nothing presented in the complaint or the pleadings since as to whose definition or standard of 'elder abuse'"-Utah's or California's- Plaintiffs were "actually asking the court to apply." The court stated that if Utah law applied, "then a declaratory judgment in this case would potentially have no bearing on the California actions" and that if California law applied, then "the California courts are in a far better position to interpret and apply their own laws."

¶8 Plaintiffs appealed, resulting in our earlier decision in this matter, Williamson v. Farrell, 2019 UT App 123, 447 P.3d 131 (Williamson I). In that appeal, we reversed the district court's dismissal of the current action and remanded for further proceedings. Id. ¶ 23. We held that "the district court took too broad a view of its statutory authority to abdicate," id. ¶ 15, because the declaratory judgment statute's use of the singular term "proceeding" indicates "that it refers to the specific declaratory judgment action at hand, and not to any larger web of disputes between the parties," id. ¶ 14. We also held that the court improperly dismissed the action insofar as the dismissal was premised on the court's common law discretion because Jennifer was not a party to the California Action or the Probate Action and because the California Action was filed after the current action. Id. ¶¶ 20-21.

Remand

¶9 Shortly following remand, in response to the district court's request for clarification regarding the scope of their complaint, Plaintiffs submitted a letter stating that

the focus of [their] declaratory relief claim is to obtain a declaration from the Court that they did not commit elder abuse against Ruth Williamson in any way, including physical or financial elder abuse. Accordingly, the "statutory or common law duties owed to Ruth Williamson" referenced in the complaint refer to statutory and common law duties relating to elder abuse. These duties are outlined in Utah Code § 62A-3-314^[3] as well as Utah common law governing claims for elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, and confidential relationships.

¶10 Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In their motion, Plaintiffs argued, in relevant part, that Utah law-not California law-should be applied to the elder abuse allegations. In their opposition to Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, Defendants stated they did "not dispute that the substantive law of Utah should apply to the determination of Plaintiffs' declaratory relief claim as they have framed it in the pleadings and subsequently confirmed in discovery."^[4] Later, in their trial brief, Plaintiffs also argued that "the Court should apply Utah law and enter" a declaration "that Thomas and Jennifer never abused Ruth in Utah."

¶11 As part of their summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs also argued that the claims of elder abuse at issue in the case were limited to the alleged financial exploitation of Ruth because that was the only relevant claim for which Utah law provided a private right of action.^[5] The parties also argued the issue of which side bore the burden of proof regarding the elder abuse claims.

¶12 In an oral ruling, the court denied the cross-motions for summary judgment, concluding that disputed issues of material fact precluded the entry of summary judgment in favor of either party. Also pretrial, the court ruled that Plaintiffs bore the burden of establishing the existence of a justiciable controversy, while Defendants bore the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs committed elder abuse against Ruth. The court further clarified that "[t]he scope of this case is related to solely acts committed after Ruth was brought to the state of Utah, acts committed wholly within the state of Utah, and under Utah law." Thus, the court limited the presentation of evidence to the timeframe of Ruth's relocation to Utah in March 2016 until her death in November 2016, and it expressly excluded any evidence related to Ruth's estate planning or the validity of any of Ruth's estate planning documents in part because that was already at issue in the Probate Action. The court also agreed with Defendants that the scope of the declaratory judgment action went "beyond" "conduct that gives rise to a private cause of action" under Utah's elder abuse statute and should include "a real broad cross section of physical, financial elder abuse and exploitation."

Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

¶13 In November 2021, the case proceeded to a three-day bench trial, during which the trial court considered whether Plaintiffs committed elder abuse under Utah statute...