Michael J. Wilkins

This case involved the State of Utah petitioning to terminate the parental rights of C.A. to her son S.L. after the child was removed from her custody due to neglect, drug use, and related incidents. The juvenile court found grounds for termination under Utah statutes based on C.A.'s failure to complete service plans for drug treatment, housing, employment, and parenting classes, along with periods of no contact and positive drug tests, and concluded it was in S.L.'s best interests. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the statutory grounds and best-interests determination.

family law

In State v. Leleae, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault after an incident in which he and two companions fired shots at a motorist, pursued him in their car, and then beat him. The trial court also imposed an enhanced sentence under Utah's gang enhancement statute. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, voir dire procedures, the exclusion of portions of his police statement under Rule 106, the constitutionality of the enhancement statute, and sentencing under the Shondel doctrine. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the aggravated assault conviction, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible errors in the trial proceedings, but vacated the enhanced sentence and remanded for resentencing because the jury had not been properly instructed on the elements required for the gang enhancement.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved appellants challenging a city administrative order finding them in violation of building code provisions after roofing work. The administrative hearing was not recorded due to equipment failure, so no record existed for the trial court to review the petition. The court held that the city's failure to record the hearing as required by ordinance violated the appellants' procedural due process rights under the city code, warranting remand for a new hearing, but affirmed that no de novo hearing was authorized by the ordinance.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between homeowners Robert and Laura Kurth and contractor Lonetree Services, Inc., whose president Daniel Wiarda signed a mechanics' lien individually after the Kurths withheld final payment and hired a replacement builder due to alleged poor workmanship on their log home. The consolidated lawsuits included claims for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, wrongful lien, and lien foreclosure; a jury awarded the Kurths damages against Lonetree on several claims while dismissing others, and the trial court later awarded the Kurths over $35,000 in attorney fees and costs under Utah's mechanics' lien statute as the prevailing party. The trial court held Wiarda personally liable for the fees because the lien was filed in his individual name, and the appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the statute entitled the successful party to fees, that Wiarda's personal execution of the lien made him liable, and that the related claims were sufficiently intertwined to support the award without double recovery. The court rejected Wiarda's arguments that he was the prevailing party or that the fees were unreasonable.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Ronald G. Black seeking to overturn the Utah State Insurance Commissioner's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion to set aside a default judgment that revoked his title insurance license after the Department initiated proceedings against Black's Title, Inc. and its agents. The court denied relief, holding that the Commissioner acted within his discretion in refusing to set aside the default. Black had received notice of the investigation and proceedings through certified mail and communications from his wife but took no action to respond within the required period or to ensure counsel acted on his behalf. The Commissioner found that Black failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or due diligence, particularly given his awareness of the issues and lack of specific evidence that his health prevented communication or response.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Riggs, the defendant was convicted of three counts of automobile homicide and one count of receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle after driving a stolen truck while intoxicated, attempting to evade police, running a red light, and causing a crash that killed three people. He appealed the trial court's decision to give the jury a flight instruction and its refusal to suppress a statement he made to police at the hospital without Miranda warnings. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the flight instruction was proper because it related to the lesser-included offense of driving under the influence that the jury was also instructed on. The court further held that the statement was admissible because the officer's single question about whether the defendant remembered the accident did not constitute custodial interrogation under Miranda, as it was not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a contract dispute between real estate developer Pacific Development and subcontractor Orton over payment for sewer, water, and storm drain work on a subdivision, including extra work claims on Plat B and Plat C that led to a mechanics' lien and related lawsuits. The parties agreed to arbitrate, with the scope limited to Plat C issues, but the arbitrator addressed both plats in the final award. The district court confirmed the arbitration award under the Utah Arbitration Act, and the appellate court affirmed that decision. The core reasoning was that courts have a narrow, statutorily limited role in reviewing arbitration awards, must resolve doubts in favor of arbitration, and will uphold an award that draws its essence from the contract even if factual or legal errors occurred.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, Gerald McCoy sued Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Utah after the insurer denied coverage for an experimental breast cancer treatment under a health insurance policy originally purchased in 1985. Blue Cross moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause it added to the policy in 1986, claiming it had mailed notices of the change and that McCoy had waived objections by continuing coverage after learning of the clause in 1995. The trial court denied the motion, finding insufficient evidence that notices were sent to McCoy and that the 1995 letter did not provide adequate notice of the arbitration terms to establish waiver or agreement. On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Blue Cross failed to prove compliance with the policy's notice requirements or the existence of a binding arbitration agreement. The court rejected both the mailing presumption due to conflicting evidence and any waiver argument because the letter only mentioned a 'right' to arbitration without detailing its terms.

healthcareprocedure

This case was a divorce action in which the defendant’s attorney withdrew on the morning of trial. The trial court immediately struck the defendant’s pleadings, entered default against her, and awarded the plaintiff the relief requested in the complaint, including attorney fees and the entire retirement fund. The defendant’s subsequent motion to set aside the default judgment under Rule 60(b) was denied. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Rule 4-506 required opposing counsel to give written notice to the now-unrepresented party before any further proceedings could occur and barred additional action until twenty days after the notice was filed with the court.

family lawprocedure

This case arose from a dispute following a 1989 California divorce, in which the ex-wife's California attorney filed a lis pendens on the ex-husband's Utah property in 1995 to enforce the divorce decree, even though no action was pending at the time; the ex-husband sued the attorney in Utah for wrongful lien, abuse of process, and negligence. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the attorney on the negligence claim, holding that she owed no duty of care to the opposing party, and on the abuse of process claim, holding that the underlying California enforcement action had not terminated in the ex-husband's favor because it ended in settlement. The court reversed on the wrongful lien claim, holding that the lis pendens was invalid and groundless under Utah law because no divorce action was pending when it was recorded and that the claim was not moot or barred by collateral estoppel, and remanded for a determination of damages and attorney fees.

family lawpropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

In Potter v. Chadaz, Reta Chadaz appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment to Dean and Diane Potter, which quieted title to a sixty-six-foot parcel of land in Tremonton, Utah, in the Potters' favor. Chadaz claimed an easement over the parcel based on various deeds and agreements from property transfers involving Heritage Partners and others. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that no express easement was created because the relevant documents failed to properly reserve one and violated the stranger to the deed doctrine, and that no easement by implication, prescription, or necessity existed since Chadaz had never used the parcel and her property was not landlocked. The court reasoned that Chadaz lost her rights upon conveying the property and subsequent attempts to reserve an easement were invalid.

property

In State v. Keppler, the defendant appealed his conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine after previously pleading guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia, both arising from items found during the same search. He argued that the charges were part of a single criminal episode under Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-403 and thus barred by his prior plea. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the offenses did not qualify as a single criminal episode because, although they occurred at the same time, they involved distinct criminal objectives. The court reasoned that the legislature created separate offenses for possessing controlled substances and drug paraphernalia, which have different statutory elements and thus separate objectives, supported by comparisons to similar cases from other jurisdictions and Utah precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Martin, the defendant was convicted of robbery and placed on probation, which the trial court later extended after he signed a waiver following discussions with his probation officer about violations including new crimes. The defendant challenged the extension as procedurally improper under Utah Code Ann. § 77-18-1, arguing it deprived the court of authority to revoke probation and impose the original one-to-fifteen-year prison sentence, and that his waiver was not knowing or voluntary. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the extension complied with the statute because the defendant had waived his right to a hearing, the waiver was made knowingly based on prior experience with probation proceedings, and the court therefore retained jurisdiction to revoke probation upon subsequent violations.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Visser, the defendant, charged as a juvenile with aggravated sexual assault, was bound over to district court and pleaded guilty to rape mid-trial after key witnesses declined to testify. He later moved to withdraw the plea, arguing that the trial court's Rule 11(e) colloquy failed to strictly advise him of rights including a speedy trial before an impartial jury and the right against self-incrimination. The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the motion, holding that strict compliance with Rule 11(e) is required even for mid-trial pleas and that the colloquy was insufficient because it did not explicitly cover all enumerated rights. The court remanded for further proceedings on the plea withdrawal. A dissent argued that a rigid application of the rule was unnecessary in the mid-trial context.

criminal lawprocedure

In Crompton v. Crompton, a divorce action filed after 25 years of marriage with two children, the husband appealed the trial court's award of $1,100 monthly permanent alimony to the wife and its division of remaining home equity, contending that the court could not base the alimony calculation on his history of overtime by attributing a 55-hour work week. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's alimony award and property distribution. The court held that trial courts may consider regular, consistent, and predictable overtime earnings when fixing alimony if those earnings reflect income sources used during the marriage to meet the parties' needs, and it found the trial court's determination that the husband's overtime pattern would continue was not clearly erroneous and the resulting award was not an abuse of discretion. The court noted that if the husband's work hours materially changed, he could seek modification of the decree.

family lawproperty