Case Summaries
| Jurisdiction | Utah,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 12 No. 4 Pg. 52 |
| Pages | 52 |
| Publication year | 1999 |
Daniel M. Torrence, J.
MORSE V. PACKER
361 Utah Adv. 20 (Utah, January 22,1999). Lynn Packer, pro se plaintiff/appellant; Timothy M. Willardson, then Michael S. Eldrege for Defendant/Appellee.
Morse sued Packer, a free-lance reporter, for defamation arising out of a story Packer was investigating and writing for the Private Eye Weekly. Packer won a motion for summary judgment and then argued for Rule 11 sanctions against Willardson, which was denied.
On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that courts are required to describe the offending conduct on the record when imposing Rule 11 sanctions. Similarly, when denying sanctions, a trial court must put the same type of findings in the record, so that the appellate courts may apply the appropriate standards of review. The case was remanded for an order from the trial court explaining its rationale denying sanctions.
OXENDINE V. OVERTURE
361 Utah Adv. Rep. 23 (Utah, January 22,1999). C. Michael Lawrence for Plaintiff/Appellant; James E. Morton, Peter C. Collins, and Tara L. Isaacson for Defendants/ Appellees.
Ms. Gay Overturf died due to the negligence of the University of Utah Medical Center. Her husband, represented by James Morton, brought suit as the personal representative of her heirs. The deceased's mother, Thelma Oxendine, wished to have Morton represent her interests as well, but Morton declined and Oxendine hired C. Michael Lawrence. Morton and the Medical Center settled the case without notifying Lawrence. Oxendine then sued her co-heirs and Morton for contribution and breach of a third-party beneficiary contract, based upon the settlement agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants and Oxendine appealed.
The Supreme Court noted that the Utah Code and case law provide that when a personal representative brings a wrongful death action, he does it for the benefit of all statutory heirs. Therefore, Oxendine had a claim against Overturf for failing to represent her interests, but may not bring a contribution action against the co-heirs.
Oxendine also argued that Morton had a duty to protect her interests because the settlement was intended to benefit the statutory heirs, including her. Historically, an attorney could not be held liable to a non-client absent fraud, collusion, or privity of contract. However, the modern trend is to abandon privity requirements in attorney negligence and...
To continue reading
Request your trial