Treloggan v. Treloggan, 19954
| Decision Date | 05 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 19954,19954 |
| Citation | 699 P.2d 747 |
| Parties | Graham L. TRELOGGAN and Joyce S. Treloggan, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Curtis L. TRELOGGAN and Julie A. Treloggan, and D & C Builders, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Horace J. Knowlton, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.
James R. Hasenyager, Ogden, for plaintiffs and respondents.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting respondents' motion for summary judgment and dismissing appellant's complaint in intervention and subsequent amended complaints.
Respondents are the parents of defendant Curtis Treloggan. On February 12, 1979, Curtis and Julie Treloggan, his wife, borrowed $15,000 from respondents. A promissory note was signed which provided that the principal and interest (at 10% per annum) would be paid on or before February 2, 1980. To secure performance on the note, respondents took a mortgage on real property located in Weber County. The mortgage was recorded on February 13, 1979.
On March 1, 1979, appellant D & C Builders obtained a judgment against Curtis and Julie Treloggan for money due on an open account. Subsequently, it filed a judgment lien against the Weber County property.
When the promissory note was not paid within the time allotted, respondents filed a complaint to foreclose on the mortgage. In personal correspondence with the district court, Curtis and Julie Treloggan conceded default on the debt. D & C Builders filed an answer and counterclaim wherein it alleged that the conveyance to respondents was void, praying that it be declared the first lienholder. On June 16, 1980, the district court granted respondents summary judgment of foreclosure against Curtis and Julie Treloggan and ordered that appellant's interests be tried on its counterclaim.
Further proceedings against the property were stayed when Curtis and Julie Treloggan filed for bankruptcy and the trustee in bankruptcy assumed control of the property. When the property could not be sold for any amount greater than respondents' interest, the trustee abandoned the property in January 1984.
On February 22, 1984, respondents filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing D & C Builders' complaint in intervention and amended complaint. Respondents asserted that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law since there was no genuine issue as to material fact. Respondents' motion was supported by affidavits and other documents establishing that the $15,000 was in fact paid by respondents to their son and daughter-in-law in a purely arm's length transaction. In response, D & C Builders filed affidavits of its office manager alleging, upon information and belief, that the note and mortgage had been given to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy Dist.
...pipe in the water line immediately. Such unsupported opinion is not sufficient to create an issue of fact. See Treloggan v. Treloggan, 699 P.2d 747, 748 (Utah 1985) (per curiam) (rejecting an affidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment because it “reveal[ed] no evidentiary fact......
-
Jenkins v. Jordan Valley Water Conservancy Dist.
...pipe in the water line immediately. Such unsupported opinion is not sufficient to create an issue of fact. See Treloggan v. Treloggan, 699 P.2d 747, 748 (Utah 1985) (per curiam) (rejecting an affidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment because it "reveal[ed] no evidentiary fact......
-
Orvis v. Johnson
...if it "reveal[s] no evidentiary facts, but merely reflect[s] the affiant's unsubstantiated opinions and conclusions." Treloggan v. Treloggan, 699 P.2d 747, 748 (Utah 1985). Moreover, the SBA deposition questions do not mention real estate, indicating that Johnson's response to the question ......
-
Harper v. Summit County
...genuine issues of fact exist unless face of nonmovant's affidavit affirmatively discloses existence of such issue); Treloggan v. Treloggan, 699 P.2d 747, 748 (Utah 1985) (stating nonmoving party's affidavit must contain specific evidentiary facts showing existence of genuine issue for trial......