Bank of Am. v. Adamson
| Decision Date | 11 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 20140861,20140861 |
| Citation | 391 P.3d 196 |
| Parties | BANK OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. Samuel D. ADAMSON and Courtney D. Adamson, Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Robert H. Scott, Salt Lake City, UT, Amy Miller, Washington D.C., Brian E. Pumphrey, Richmond, VA, for appellant.
John Christian Barlow, St. George, UT, for appellees.
Having been recused, Justice Pearce does not participate herein; District Judge Barry G. Lawrence sat.
INTRODUCTION
¶1 This case involves a nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted in violation of Utah Code section 57–1–21, which requires the trustee of the sale to maintain a physical office location within the state. Today we answer the question left open in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Sundquist , 2013 UT 45, 311 P.3d 1004, as to the appropriate remedy for this violation. Because we conclude, under the circumstances of this case, that the violation did not result in a void or voidable trustee's deed, we hold that the district court erred in dismissing the unlawful detainer action in favor of the Adamsons. We thus reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶2 Samuel D. Adamson refinanced his home in 2007 through a deed of trust.1 Mr. Adamson defaulted on the loan in December 2008. Bank of America appointed ReconTrust as the successor trustee, which then executed and recorded a notice of default and election to sell on June 25, 2009. The notice included a phone number to reach ReconTrust with any questions.
¶3 Although Mr. Adamson had notice of the default and upcoming trustee sale date, he never contacted ReconTrust before the scheduled sale date, and did not attend the sale.2 Neither did Mr. Adamson seek an injunction or file a lawsuit prior to the sale. On January 14, 2010, ReconTrust sold the property in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale to BAC Home Loans Services, LP. BAC Home Loans Services eventually merged with Bank of America, which then sold the property to Distressed Asset on December 18, 2013. Mr. Adamson and his wife, Courtney D. Adamson, have lived continuously on the property since the sale, and have not made a loan payment or paid property taxes since December 2008.
¶4 In 2014, Distressed Asset filed an unlawful detainer action against the Adamsons. At trial, the Adamsons argued that the trustee's sale was defective because ReconTrust did not meet the qualifications to serve as trustee under Utah Code section 57–1–21, which required ReconTrust to maintain a physical office location in Utah. Id. § 57–1–21(1)(a). The Adamsons argued that this defect rendered the sale void.
¶5 The district court noted that in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Sundquist , 2013 UT 45, ¶ 13, 311 P.3d 1004, we held that However, the district court also noted that "the Sundquist court expressly declined to decide what effect, if any, its determination that ReconTrust did not qualify as a trustee with the power of sale would have on the validity of the sale and resulting trust deed." See id. ¶ 50.
¶6 Although the district court found that Distressed Asset had made out "a prima facie case for unlawful detainer," it concluded that the failure to satisfy Utah Code section 57–1–21 rendered the trustee sale void ab initio , and dismissed the unlawful detainer action. Distressed Asset appealed. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. Distressed Asset then assigned its rights, title, and interest in the property to Bank of America. After oral argument in the court of appeals, but before that court issued an opinion, we vacated our transfer order and recalled the case. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A–3–102(3)(j).
¶7 "We review questions of statutory interpretation for correctness, affording no deference to the district court's legal conclusions." Salt Lake City Corp. v. Evans Dev. Grp., LLC , 2016 UT 15, ¶ 9, 369 P.3d 1263 (citation omitted).
¶8 Bank of America advances two main arguments on appeal: first, that we should overturn our decision in Federal National Mortgage Association v. Sundquist , 2013 UT 45, 311 P.3d 1004, and hold that the National Bank Act "preempts Utah law regarding a national bank's authority to exercise the power of sale;" and second—even if we do not overturn Sundquist —that the district court erred in finding the trustee sale void. We hold that Bank of America has failed to meet its burden of persuasion on its first argument because it was inadequately briefed, but we conclude the district court erred in finding the trustee sale void and in dismissing the unlawful detainer action.
¶9 Stare decisis is "a cornerstone of Anglo-American jurisprudence." State v. Guard , 2015 UT 96, ¶ 33, 371 P.3d 1 (citation omitted). Therefore, "[t]hose asking us to overturn prior precedent have a substantial burden of persuasion." State v. Menzies , 889 P.2d 393, 398 (Utah 1994). In order to meet this burden, "we must be ‘clearly convinced that’ prior caselaw ‘was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing conditions.’ " Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc. , 2015 UT 64, ¶ 23, 356 P.3d 1172 (citation omitted).
¶10 Bank of America does not mention this standard, nor does it offer any arguments to explain why our decision was either originally erroneous or no longer sound. Bank of America asserts that " Sundquist was wrongly decided and should be overruled." But the only authority it cites as "significant legal developments" in support of its assertion is an unpublished Tenth Circuit opinion3 and two amici curiae briefs from other cases. See Garrett v. ReconTrust Co. , 546 Fed.Appx. 736 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished opinion); Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's Amicus Brief, Dutcher v. Matheson , No. 12-4150 (10th Cir. July 15, 2013); U.S. Solicitor General's Amicus Brief, Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Sundquist , No. 13-852 (U.S. Oct. 7, 2014). Bank of America devotes fewer than two pages of its brief to this issue and does not develop any reasoned argument for overturning our very recent precedent.
¶11 Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(9) requires an appellant's brief to "contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented ... with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." We have clarified this requirement by stating that "[a]n issue is inadequately briefed if the argument ‘merely contains bald citations to authority [without] development of that authority and reasoned analysis based on that authority.’ "
State v. Timmerman , 2009 UT 58, ¶ 25 n.5, 218 P.3d 590 () (citation omitted). We have, at times, stated that inadequate briefing is an absolute bar to review of an argument on appeal. See Johnson v. Johnson , 2014 UT 21, ¶ 20, 330 P.3d 704 . However, we recognize that there is a spectrum of how adequately an argument may be briefed. On one end, an issue may be argued in only one sentence without any citations to legal authority or to the record. On the other, there may be dozens of pages of argument including volumes of authority and citations to the record regarding a single issue. Defining the exact point at which a brief becomes adequate is not possible, nor is it advisable, as each issue is different and may require different amounts of analysis and argument.
¶12 We clarify that there is not a bright-line rule determining when a brief is inadequate. Rather, an appellant who fails to adequately brief an issue "will almost certainly fail to carry its burden of persuasion on appeal." State v. Nielsen , 2014 UT 10, ¶ 42, 326 P.3d 645. "Accordingly, from here on our analysis will be focused on the ultimate question of whether the appellant has established a [sufficient argument for ruling in its favor]—and not on whether there is a technical deficiency in [briefing] meriting a default." Id. ¶ 41.
¶13 While we make this clarification, we emphasize the importance of a party's thoughtful analysis of prior precedent and its application to the record. An appellant that fails to devote adequate attention to an issue is almost certainly going to fail to meet its burden of persuasion. A party must cite the legal authority on which its argument is based and then provide reasoned analysis of how that authority should apply in the particular case, including citations to the record where appropriate. Under this standard, we hold that Bank of America has failed to meet its burden of persuading us that we should overrule Sundquist .
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelly v. Timber Lakes Prop. Owners Ass'n
...Validity of the Trustee's Sale ¶45 "When title to real property is at issue, the need for finality is at its apex." Bank of Am. v. Adamson , 2017 UT 2, ¶ 17, 391 P.3d 196 (quotation simplified). For this reason, "once a trustee sale is completed," and the trustee conveys a deed to the succe......
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Sundquist, 20170014
...appellant who fails to adequately brief an issue ‘will almost certainly fail to carry its burden of persuasion on appeal.’ " Bank of Am. v. Adamson , 2017 UT 2, ¶ 12, 391 P.3d 196 (citation omitted). "The argument must explain, with reasoned analysis supported by citations to legal authorit......
-
State v. Drommond
...But he has inadequately briefed this argument and has thus failed to carry his burden of persuasion on appeal. ¶132 Our opinion in Bank of America v. Adamson , straightened out our briefing requirements. 2017 UT 2, ¶ 11, 391 P.3d 196. We held there that we do not have "a bright-line rule de......
-
State v. Johnson
...at trial and properly argued on appeal, appellate courts should typically reach that issue absent some defect in briefing, see Bank of Am. v. Adamson, 2017 UT 2, ¶ 12, 391 P.3d 196 ("[A]n appellant who fails to adequately brief an issue 'will almost certainly fail to carry its burden of per......