Abbott Law Blog

Just finished a bench trial in Park City with Judge Kelly.  Our client was a subcontractor who had not been paid for installing windows and doors.  Judge Kelly gave a judgment in favor of our client.

Since 1997, Donald and Jeanette Rawlings have been involved in litigation with their siblings over ownership of property located just west of the freeway and at about 400 South in Orem, Utah.  Donald Rawlings claimed that his father had transferred the land to him several decades ago in exchange for Donald paying off some of his father’s debts.  His siblings claimed that the father transferred the propety to Donald to hold in trust for the benefit of all of the children.

A trial was held in 2005 and Judge Howard found the siblings to be more credible.  Judge Howard concluded that the property belonged to all of the children.  Donald Rawlings appealed.  The Court of Appeals agreed with Donald, finding that even if the siblings were more credible, the law did not support a finding that overlooked the name on the deed.  The Court of Appeals gave the property back to Donald.

Finally, on May 7, 2010, the Supreme Court resolved the issue.  The Supreme Court has the last word on this issue and thus it should finally be resolved.  The Supreme Court held that the legal requirements for a trust were met and the property is owned by Donald Rawlings in trust for the benefit of all of the siblings.

Just had a hearing in which we represented a defendant in a mechanic’s lien case.  Our client bought the entire subdivision after after the mechanic’s lien was filed.  The plaintiff was an engineering firm that had done over $100,000 in work to get the subdivision ready for filing.   Because the general contractor and property owner did not pay the bill, the engineering firm hired a big Salt Lake City law firm, filed a mechanics lien and then filed suit to foreclose the lien.  If successful, our client would be forced to pay the engineering bill.

The statute of limitiations on these cases is only 180 days.  Because the general contractor had declared bankruptcy, the big Salt Lake City law firm thought that they were prohibited from filing the foreclosure action until after the bankruptcy was dismissed.  Accordingly, they waited more than the 180 days to file the lawsuit.

We filed a motion for summary judgment based upon the fact that the statute of limitations had run.  Because our client was a subsequent owner, our client was not liable to the engineering firm for breach of contract or unjust enrichment.  The only shot the engineering firm had against our client was to foreclose the lien.

The big Salt Lake City firm argued that the general contract was an indispensable party and therefore the statute of limitations was tolled during the bankruptcy.  We prevailed.  The judge agreed with us that the Statute of Limitations was not tolled, the lawsuit was filed late and therefore, she dismissed the case.

It’s nice to win for a client.  Beating a big Salt Lake City law firm makes it even sweeter.