In November 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit against a local business and its owner, alleging a Ponzi scheme that defrauded friends, colleagues, and fellow church members out of at least $200 million. If the allegations are true, this is just the latest of many Ponzi schemes perpetrated in Utah based on bonds of trust – also known as affinity fraud.

In 2016, there were 62,471 reported traffic crashes on public roadways in Utah.

In 1986, the Utah Legislature imposed a cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases.

            Under Utah’s Mechanic’s Lien Act, a person or entity who performs labor, furnishes materials, or renders services provided for the purpose of constructing, altering or repairing an improvement to a parcel of land, including contractors, subcontractors, artisans, architects, engineers, and laborers, may claim a “lien” against that parcel of land for the reasonable value of the labor and/or materials provided.  A “lien” is a legal right or interest in another's property, which encumbers the property until the lien amount is paid.  In this context, the amount of the lien would be the reasonable value of the services, labor, or materials provided for the improvement of the property.   

                A person suing him or herself makes no intuitive sense.  After all, if the suit were successful and resulted in an award of monetary damages, the successful litigant could benefit from the judgment award only if she collected money from herself.  The senselessness of this situation changes when a person acting in one capacity (e.g., as the personal representative of an estate) sues herself in a different capacity (e.g., as an individual in a non-representative capacity).  The Utah Supreme Court recently addressed such a situation in Bagley v. Bagley, 2016 UT 48, 387 P.3d 1000. 

            In 1960, the Utah Supreme Court recognized a defense known as the “sudden incapacity defense.”  See Porter v. Price, 355 P.2d 66, 67 (Utah 1960), overruled in part on other grounds by Randle v. Allen, 862 P.2d 1329 (Utah 1993).  

Utah courts may have jurisdiction over a matter even though a given court is not the most convenient location to litigate the matter. 

In Utah, small claims court cases have always been heard by a judge, not a jury.   Prior to 2016, a defendant sued in a Utah small claims court had no right to demand that a jury hear the claims brought against her.

Whether a party to a contract may recover interest from another can be an important consideration when deciding to litigate over the contract.

A Utah employer generally may require its employee to sign a non-compete agreement whereby the employee agrees not to compete with the employer after the employment relationship terminates.  However, not all non-compete agreements are enforceable.  

Courts generally treat children differently than adults.  For example, specific juvenile courts exist to resolve criminal matters involving minors.  As another example, the United States Supreme Court has determined the Constitution prohibits the execution of an “adolescent” who commits murder just days before his eighteenth birthday, but permits the death penalty for an “adult” who commits the same crime just days after turning eighteen.  See Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 578 (2005).  But, what about the civil context?  If an 11-year-old girl negligently leaves a pair of scissors on a sidewalk, and you injure yourself by stepping on those scissors, could you sue the girl for her negligence?  What if the girl was only four-years-old?  The Utah Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in Nielsen ex rel. C.N. v. Bell ex rel. B.B., 2016 UT 14, 370 P.3d 925.

When two parties enter a contract, they may unknowingly disagree over what certain terms mean.  Indeed, the first party may understand a contract’s language to mean something entirely different than how the second party understands the exact same language.

As the Utah Supreme Court once observed, “‘[i]n the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,’ Genesis 1:1, and families have been fighting over them ever since.”  Rawlings v. Rawlings, 2015 UT 85, ¶1, 358 P.3d 1103.  

In Utah, like many other states, a non-governmental employer is given very broad discretion to manage its workforce.  Consequently, an employer or employee may terminate an employment relationship for any reason, or no reason, except where the reason is prohibited by law.

Generally, the owners and managers of a company cannot be sued for the actions, debts, or liabilities of their company.  For example, if company A breaches a contract, the other party to the contract can sue company A, but not the owners or managers of company A.  The reason is because company A is viewed as a separate legal entity, capable of contracting and otherwise acting on its own.  

Thus, “in order to win a tortious interference claim under Utah law, a plaintiff must now prove (1) that the defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's existing or potential economic relations, (2) by improper means, (3) causing injury to the plaintiff.”

Even if decedent already recovered damages during her life.  When a person is injured by the misconduct of another, the law provides a remedy in the form of a personal injury lawsuit.  For example, if driver A negligently drives her vehicle and hits B while he is walking on the sidewalk, B can recover from A for his injuries. 

A statute of limitations is a legal rule setting the time within which a person must initiate legal proceedings based on an event.  For example, if you want to sue someone for trespassing on your land, you must initiate your lawsuit with three calendar years of the trespass.  If you fail to do so, you lose your right to sue for that trespass, unless special circumstances exist.  Statutes of limitations apply in both civil and criminal cases.  

We all have a general duty to act reasonably when we act, such as when we drive or cross a street; however, the law will rarely impose liability for failing to act, such as choosing not to call the police when observing a robbery in progress.  In most cases, we can only be held liable for failing to act when we have a “special relationship” with the injured party.

Prior to November 2011, early-stage litigation consisted of four basic steps: 1) plaintiff’s filing of a complaint, 2) defendant’s filing of a response, 3) plaintiff’s disclosure of potential fact witnesses, relevant evidence, and damage calculations, and 4) defendant’s disclosure of potential fact witnesses and relevant evidence.  No party was required to produce for the other party any of the relevant evidence.