Utah Law Developments
| Publication year | 2013 |
| Pages | 32 |
Vol. 26, No. 2. 32. Utah Law Developments
Volume 26 No. 2
Mar/Apr 2013
EDITORS NOTE: The following appellate cases of interest were recently decided by the Utah Supreme Court and Utah Court of Appeals. These summaries were compiled to provide a reference to practitioners who want to know in a five-to-ten-minute read what has been happening of significance in our appellate courts.
In re Guardianship of A.T.I.G.,
2012 UT 88 (December 11, 2012)
Preparing for her imminent death, a single mother prepared a testamentary appointment and conservatorship of her minor child in favor of her parents, pursuant to Utah Code Section 75-5-202.5. Utah Code Ann. § 75-5-202.5 (Michie 1993). After the mother's death, the district court signed the grandparents' petition for appointment of guardianship to confirm and accept the appointment. As of that time, the child's father was not named on the birth certificate, had not signed a voluntary declaration of paternity, and had never sought to adjudicate parentage. After the appointment, the father moved to vacate the appointment alleging he did not receive prior notice. He also filed a separate lawsuit to establish paternity. The supreme court upheld the appointment of the grandparents as guardians. The court found that although father had intervener status and thus standing, he had failed to preserve appellate challenges to the district court's denial of his motion to vacate. This case raises issues of failing to preserve issues for appeal, as well as testamentary appointments issues such as notice, definition of "parent," and establishing paternity under the Utah Parentage Act. It also makes clear that, despite the court of appeals having done so, the Utah Supreme Court has never recognized an exception to the preservation rule when the central issue to be decided concerns the best interests of a child.
Berrett v. Albertsons, Inc.,
2012 UT App 371 (December 28, 2012)
The Utah Court of Appeals adopted Section 413 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, stating that a grocery store should have recognized that an independent contractor's work on an uncovered manhole in its parking lot created a peculiar unreasonable risk, thus creating a duty of care toward patrons. The court rejected Albertsons' argument that adoption of this section runs contrary...
To continue reading
Request your trial