Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah
Decision Date | 21 August 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 991059.,991059. |
Citation | 31 P.3d 543,2001 UT 75 |
Parties | Bruce GILDEA and Shirlynn Gildea, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. GUARDIAN TITLE COMPANY OF UTAH, Murphy, Tolboe & Mabey, L. Benson Mabey, Randall N. Day, and John C. Sittner, Defendants and Appellee. |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
31 P.3d 543
2001 UT 75
v.
GUARDIAN TITLE COMPANY OF UTAH, Murphy, Tolboe & Mabey, L. Benson Mabey, Randall N. Day, and John C. Sittner, Defendants and Appellee
No. 991059.
Supreme Court of Utah.
August 21, 2001.
Stephen B. Mitchell, L. Benson Mabey, Salt Lake City, for defendants.
RUSSON, Associate Chief Justice:
¶ 1 Bruce and Shirlynn Gildea (the "Gildeas") and their attorney William D. Marsh ("Marsh") seek reversal of a district court order awarding Guardian Title Company of Utah ("Guardian") $5136.02 in attorney fees and costs in accordance with a previous determination by this court that the Gildeas' claims against Guardian were frivolous. See Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah, 970 P.2d 1265, 1272 (Utah 1998) ("Gildea I"). Marsh also seeks reversal of a subsequent district court order awarding Guardian $786.75 as sanctions under rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
BACKGROUND
¶ 2 On November 24, 1998, in a prior appeal of this case this court entered a decision affirming the district court's dismissal of the Gildeas' claims against Guardian for breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to defraud, and negligent misrepresentation. See Gildea I, 970 P.2d at 1272. In doing so, this court determined that there was a "total lack of basis in fact for the [Gildeas'] claims against Guardian," and therefore awarded Guardian its costs and reasonable attorney fees on appeal pursuant to rule 33(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure in an amount to be determined by the district court. Id. On December 22, 1998, the Gildeas filed a petition for rehearing asking this court to reconsider our award of costs and attorney fees to Guardian under rule 33. This court denied the Gildeas' petition for rehearing on January 13, 1999.
¶ 4 Subsequently, on July 30, 1999, the Gildeas moved for a new hearing or, in the alternative, to vacate the award of attorney fees. In the motion, Marsh and the Gildeas principally argued that "[t]he Supreme Court erred in awarding attorney's fees under rule 33" and that, therefore, the district court's award of attorney fees on remand must be vacated in its entirety. In response, Guardian argued that the Gildeas' motion to vacate was frivolous and should be rejected on its face because the district court could not over-rule this court's previous decision in Gildea I.
¶ 5 In addition to filing a memorandum in opposition to the Gildeas' motion to vacate, Guardian, on August 11, 1999, sent Marsh a copy of a motion for sanctions under rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, notifying him, as required by rule 11, that unless the Gildeas' motion to vacate was withdrawn within twenty days, Guardian would file its motion for rule 11 sanctions with the district court. When the Gildeas' motion to vacate was not withdrawn, Guardian, on September 1, 1999, filed its rule 11 motion with the district court, but did not give Marsh additional notice that the motion had been filed. Moreover, Guardian never filed a notice to submit its rule 11 motion for decision as required by rule 4-501 of the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration.
¶ 6 On September 1, 1999, Guardian filed a notice to submit for decision the Gildeas' motion to vacate, making no reference to its request for rule 11 sanctions. Thereafter, on October 14, 1999, the district court denied the Gildeas' motion to vacate, affirming its earlier award of $5136.02 in attorney fees and costs against the Gildeas and Marsh. The district court further determined, on its own initiative, that the Gildeas' motion to vacate violated rule 11, in that it was "frivolous and not brought in good faith," and therefore awarded Guardian its costs and attorney fees incurred in responding to the Gildeas' motion to vacate as sanctions against Marsh. In accordance with the trial court's ruling, Guardian submitted an affidavit of attorney fees and a proposed judgment to the district court with regard to the amount of additional fees it incurred in opposing the Gildeas' frivolous motion. On November 15, 1999, the district court entered a judgment against Marsh, awarding...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Helf v. Chevron
...on appeal bind the trial court on remand, and generally bind this court should the case return on appeal after remand.”Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah,2001 UT 75, ¶ 9, 31 P.3d 543. When applied to this court after a case returns to us for a second time, this doctrine “is not an inexora......
-
USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp
...verdict and a JNOV).17 Lyon v. Burton, 2000 UT 19, ¶ 11, 5 P.3d 616.18 DeBry, 879 P.2d at 1359 (citations omitted).19 Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah, 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9, 31 P.3d 543.20 See Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Ivers, 2009 UT 56, ¶ 12, 218 P.3d 583 (“The mandate rule ‘dictates that pr......
-
Brady v. Park
...IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D&K Mgmt., Inc. , 2008 UT 73, ¶ 28, 196 P.3d 588.28 Thurston , 892 P.2d at 1038.29 See Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah , 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9, 31 P.3d 543 ("The doctrine was developed to promote the obedience of inferior courts as well as ‘to avoid the delays and ......
-
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Sundquist, 20170014
...are not immune from the effects of our decisions. And we are generally bound by our prior decisions in the same case. Gildea v. Guardian Title Co. of Utah , 2001 UT 75, ¶ 9, 31 P.3d 543 ("Under the law of the case doctrine, issues resolved by this court on appeal bind the trial court on rem......
-
Article Title: Affirming the Untested - Affirming a Trial Court Based on Issues Raised Sua Sponte
...by either party, without the adversely affected party receiving notice and being allowed to respond. See Gildea v. Guardian Title Co., 2001 UT 75, ¦11; Plumb, 809 P.2d at 743 ("Regardless of whether the procedures in this case are so extreme as to deny class counsel the due process guarante......