Wilberg v. Hyatt
Decision Date | 23 August 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 20100781–CA.,20100781–CA. |
Parties | Ross WILBERG and Wes C. Garrett Wilberg, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Albert C. HYATT and Clyde Magnuson, Defendants and Appellees. |
Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Don M. Torgerson and Samuel P. Chiara, Price, for Appellants.
Brant H. Wall, Salt Lake City, for Appellee Clyde Magnuson.
Michael D. Olsen, Castle Dale, for Appellee Albert C. Hyatt.
Before Judges ORME, ROTH, and CHRISTIANSEN.
¶ 1 Plaintiffs Ross Wilberg and Wes C. Garrett Wilberg appeal the district court's grant of partial summary judgment against them on their claim for breach of contract as well as the district court's rejection of their claim for unjust enrichment following a bench trial. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
¶ 2 This case arises from a dispute over an alleged oral contract to convey property from Defendant Albert C. Hyatt to his grandsons, the Wilbergs. In particular, the Wilbergs claim that Hyatt promised Ross that he would convey one of his properties, the Rock Canyon Ranch, to the Wilbergs if they regularly worked for Hyatt until his death and if, once Hyatt died, they would take care of Hyatt's son, their uncle, until his death. According to the Wilbergs, over the course of the following decade they “performed [the] duties required by the contract” by “work[ing] almost daily on” and “manag[ing] most of the ... operations” of the Rock Canyon Ranch, “all without compensation.”
¶ 3 The Wilbergs also allege that “in reliance on the [c]ontract, [they] invested money into the [Rock Canyon Ranch] ... including investment of ... resources and labor to install an irrigation system ... for which [they] ha[ve] not been compensated or reimbursed.” Specifically, Ross was eligible to receive a limited amount of federal funding in his lifetime that could be used for the installation of qualified irrigation systems. He used a portion of his federal funding to pay for the materials for an irrigation system that was installed on the Rock Canyon Ranch, including the pivot sprinkler and pipe. 1 The Wilbergs also contributed their labor to install the irrigation system on the Rock Canyon Ranch and to install a similar irrigation system on another property owned by Hyatt, the Clawson Ranch.2
¶ 4 Hyatt later sold the Rock Canyon Ranch to Defendant Clyde Magnuson. The Wilbergs filed a lien against the Rock Canyon Ranch for the materials and labor they contributed to install the irrigation systems on the Rock Canyon Ranch and the Clawson Ranch. The Wilbergs also sued both Hyatt and Magnuson. Against Hyatt they claimed, among other things, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Wilbergs also alleged other claims against Magnuson, which claims were contingent upon proving their breach of contract claim against Hyatt; essentially, the Wilbergs asserted that their claim to the Rock Canyon Ranch was superior to Magnuson's because Hyatt had made an enforceable contract to convey the property to the Wilbergs. The district court ultimately granted partial summary judgment to Hyatt on the Wilbergs' breach of contract claim, which also effectively disposed of all the claims the Wilbergs had brought against Magnuson. Later, the district court also rejected the Wilbergs' unjust enrichment claim against Hyatt following a bench trial. The Wilbergs appeal. 3
¶ 5 On appeal, the Wilbergs challenge the district court's grant of partial summary judgment on their breach of contract claim on two bases. First, the Wilbergs argue that the district court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to the existence of an enforceable oral contract under the part performance exception to the statute of frauds. Second, the Wilbergs argue that Hyatt's and Magnuson's summary judgment moving papers were inadequate under rule 7 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. We address each of these arguments in turn.
¶ 6 The Wilbergs first challenge the district court's grant of partial summary judgment on the basis that “there [was] not ... any genuine issue of material fact to be resolved.” See generallyUtah R. Civ. P. 56(c) ( ).
¶ 7 Typically, the statute of frauds prohibits the enforcement of oral contracts for the conveyance of property. SeeUtah Code Ann. § 25–5–1 (2007) (). “However, the doctrine of part performance allows a court of equity to enforce an oral agreement, if it has been partially performed....” Martin v. Scholl, 678 P.2d 274, 275 (Utah 1983). The part performance doctrine requires that “the oral contract and its terms must be clear and definite” and that the and “must be [done] in reliance on the contract.” Id. at 275 (internal quotation marks omitted) (the acts done in reliance on the contract must be such that “they would not have been performed had the contract not existed” and “the failure to perform on the part of the promisor would result in fraud on the performer who relied, since damages would be inadequate” (internal quotation marks omitted)) that . Stated more plainly, “the acts of part performance must be exclusively referable to the contract,” Bradshaw v. McBride, 649 P.2d 74, 79 (Utah 1982) (emphasis added), meaning that “[t]he performance must be one that is in some degree evidential of the existence of a contract and not readily explainable on any other ground,” Martin, 678 P.2d at 275 (internal quotation marks omitted). Exclusively referable acts are required because “ ‘the equitable doctrine of part performance is based on estoppel and unless the acts of part performance are exclusively referable to the contract, there is nothing to show that the [person claiming the existence of an oral contract] relied on it or changed his position to his prejudice.’ ” Martin, 678 P.2d at 277 (quoting In re Roth's Estate, 2 Utah 2d 40, 269 P.2d 278, 281 (1954)).
¶ 8 However, the requirements of the part performance doctrine are malleable in that strong proof of one requirement may somewhat diminish the strength of the showing needed for another requirement. If the existence of the contract is undisputed or is not directly challenged, or “[i]f the contract has great clarity and definiteness, there may be no need for [acts performed in] reliance which [are] exclusively referable to the contract, so long as performance fulfills the terms” of the contract. Randall v. Tracy Collins Trust Co., 6 Utah 2d 18, 305 P.2d 480, 484 (1956) (citing Van Natta v. Heywood, 57 Utah 376, 195 P. 192 (1920); Brinton v. Van Cott, 8 Utah 480, 33 P. 218 (1893)); see also id. ( ); Martin, 678 P.2d at 277 ( ). In contrast, if the existence of the contract is disputed or is not clearly established, “the necessity of showing acts of [reliance] which [a]re exclusively referable to the [contract is] vital.” Martin, 678 P.2d at 279 ( ); Price v. Lloyd, 31 Utah 86, 86 P. 767, 770–72 (1906) ( ).
¶ 9 Ultimately, the part performance exception to the statute of frauds must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. See Van Natta, 195 P. at 194 ( ); see also Martin, 678 P.2d at 275–77 ( ). Indeed, no matter how the standard for part performance is set forth, “the strong, acts-oriented evidentiary standard is constant.” Martin, 678 P.2d at 275.
¶ 10 In response to Hyatt's motion for summary judgment, the Wilbergs argued that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether they could prove the existence of an enforceable oral contract under the part performance doctrine. See generally Orvis v. Johnson, 2008 UT 2, ¶¶ 13–19, 177 P.3d 600 ( ). The district court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wittingham LLC v. TNE Ltd. P'ship
...of those funds. Because “[t]he measure of unjust enrichment ... is the value of the benefit conferred on the other party,” Wilberg v. Hyatt , 2012 UT App 233, ¶ 24, 285 P.3d 1249, it necessarily follows that, to the extent Wittingham derived no real benefit from the funds that TNE disbursed......
- Purkey v. Roberts, 20110365–CA.
-
RJT Real Estate Holdings, LLC v. Davis (In re RJT Real Estate Holdings, LLC)
...than by a conveyance in writing signed by the party creating the interest." (citing Utah Code Ann. § 25-5-1)); Wilberg v. Hyatt, 285 P.3d 1249, 1253 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) ("Typically, the statute of frauds prohibits the enforcement of oral contracts for the conveyance of property."); see als......
-
JDW-Cm, LLC v. Clark LHS, LLC
...44 P.3d 742 (“Generally, a conveyance of real property is within the statute of frauds and unenforceable absent a writing.”); Wilberg v. Hyatt, 2012 UT App 233, ¶ 7, 285 P.3d 1249 (“Typically, the statute of frauds prohibits the enforcement of oral contracts for the conveyance of property.”......