Month:

Utah Supreme Court holds that UPUAA allows “prevailing” plaintiff to recover “reasonable attorney’s fee” in Westgate v. Consumer Protection Group

shutterstock_304652984-800x380

The Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act (“UPUAA”) provides a private right of action for persons “injured by a pattern of unlawful activity.”  As part of this private right of action, the statute entitles a “prevailing party” to “recover … a reasonable attorney’s fee.”

In a recent appeal to the Utah Supreme Court handled by Christensen & Jensen (“C&J”) attorney Karra Porter, the Supreme Court held that while the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act (“UUAA”) does not authorize an arbitration panel to award attorney fees for court proceedings confirming the panel’s decision, the UPUAA allows prevailing plaintiffs to recover a reasonable attorney fee.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court confirmed the panel’s award of attorney fees expended during the arbitration, as well as granting the appellee’s request for attorney fees associated with the appeal.

On appeal, Westgate argued that the arbitration panel had no authority to award attorney fees for the court proceedings confirming the panel’s decision, and that the arbitration panel manifestly disregarded the law by awarding attorney’s fees in excess of the amount Consumer Protection Group (“CPG”) agreed to pay their lawyer.

C&J has been pursuing this case for more than a decade now.  In 2002, Westgate sued CPG for various alleged torts and breaches of contract.  Then, in 2005, CPG raised counterclaims under the UPUAA.  Under the UPUAA, a party may force arbitration of fraud claims, which Westgate took advantage of in 2008.

In 2010, an arbitration panel resolved the UPUAA claims in CPG’s favor.  However, before the arbitration panel ruled on CPG’s request for attorney fees, Westgate discovered that one of the arbitrators was a first cousin of a shareholder at the law firm representing CPG.  As a result, Westgate moved the district court to vacate the panel’s decision.  The district court granted Westgate’s motion, CPG appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed, but without ruling on CPG’s request for attorney fees.

The case then went back to the arbitration panel, which declined to award fees for pre-award arbitration litigation, but ordered approximately $558,810.30 for work performed during the arbitration and approximately $88,829.50 for work in what the panel called “post-arbitration proceedings.”  Westgate thereafter again moved the district court to vacate the panel’s decision, challenging the fee awards.  The district court denied Westgate’s motion, and Westgate appealed to the Utah Supreme Court.

As to whether the arbitration panel exceeded the scope of its authority by awarding attorney fees for post-arbitration proceedings, the Supreme Court held that the section 122 of the UUAA does not authorize an arbitration panel to award post-arbitration fees.  According to the Supreme Court:

The decision-makers most familiar with CPG’s attorneys’ work during the confirmation proceedings and resulting appeal were the courts that presided over those confirmation proceedings and resulting appeal. We think it best to assign those courts sole responsibility for granting attorney fees in those proceedings, and we therefore conclude that the panel exceeded its authority when it ordered Westgate to pay post- arbitration attorney fees.

In relation to the second issue raised on appeal, namely whether the arbitration panel acted in manifest disregard of the law by allowing CPG to collect attorney fees in excess of the contracted amount, the Supreme Court held that the arbitration panel did not manifestly disregard the law in awarding attorney fees to CPG as the prevailing party.  In fact, the Supreme Court said that not only was the panel allowed to make such an award, but also that such an award was compelled under the UPUAA.

Instead of challenging the panel’s authority to award fees for arbitration, Westgate challenged the method the panel used to calculate the fees it awarded to CPG.  The panel determined that the reasonable fee award to CPG was approximately $558,810.30, which it arrived at by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable market rate.  Westgate asserted that the panel’s calculations were in error, and that Utah law required the panel to cap the attorney fees at the amount that CPG contracted to pay.  The Supreme Court disagreed, holding:

Ultimately, because the UPUAA does not expressly limit a plaintiff’s attorney fees to those actually incurred and there is no controlling Utah case law interpreting this specific question, the arbitration panel did not commit an obvious error in its calculation of reasonable attorney fees. The district court’s order confirming the panel’s award of $558,810.30 is affirmed.

Finally, the Supreme Court addressed CPG’s request for attorney fees as it related to the instant appeal.  There, the Supreme Court granted CPG’s request for attorney fees as it related to the appeal, finding that the UPUAA authorized attorney fees related to an appeal.

What does it mean to “devise” a scheme to defraud under the Utah communications fraud statute? Utah Court of Appeals affirms communications fraud conviction in State v. Hawkins.

2016-01-CourtofAppealsIn order to sustain a charge under the Utah Pattern of Unlawful Activity Act (“UPUAA”), the State must prove that a defendant engaged in “at least three episodes of unlawful activity.”  The UPUAA includes “communications fraud” within its definition of “unlawful activity” for purposes of the statute.

In a recent case before the Utah Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the conviction of Clair Rulon Hawkins for communications fraud arising out of a fraud scheme related to real property near Park City, Utah.  Mr. Hawkins was initially charged with three counts of communications fraud and one count of engaging in a pattern of unlawful activity, but only the two counts of communications fraud went forward to trial.  As a result, the State could not sustain its UPUAA charge against Mr. Hawkins.

A jury acquitted Mr. Hawkins on the first count of communications fraud, but convicted him on the second.  The second count alleged that the victim owned a business in Colorado, which was ultimately sold, realizing approximately $1 million in profit.  The victim spoke with Ms. Chapple, VP and a Director of Empire Homes, over the phone and arranged a time where he could come to Utah to meet with Empire.

When he met with the victim, Mr. Hawkins provided certain assurances regarding the victim’s potential investment in the development.  Upon these assurances, the victim decided to purchase two lots in the development, putting approximately $423,000 down on each lot.  However, nothing went as promised, and the victim lost his investment.

Following the trial, Mr. Hawkins appealed his conviction.  On appeal, Mr. Hawkins, among other things, argued that the trial court erred in its determination that sufficient evidence established that he “devised” the alleged fraudulent scheme, because, as he put it, the district court equated “participation” in a scheme to having “devised” the scheme.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals explained that “the trial evidence showed that Hawkins devised a scheme to entice the victim to buy property based on a promise that Empire Homes would take care of everything.”  “In furtherance of that scheme,” Mr. Hawkins made a number of representations to the victim that were simply not true, including that utilities were not a problem, funding was not a problem, and Empire Homes had an insurance policy that would cover any loss should the home they built sell for less than promised.

To further persuade the victim, the court found that Mr. Hawkins represented to the victim that the developer would treat the victim and his family to a cruise when in fact the victim’s money was used to pay for the cruise.  Lastly, after the victim had purchased one of the lots, Mr. Hawkins created and had the victim sign a risk disclosure statement, which effectively revoked every promise Mr. Hawkins made to the victim.

Upon the foregoing evidence, the Court of Appeals concluded:

From the evidence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Hawkins knew that no private trust existed to fund the Deer Canyon Development but that he nevertheless affirmatively represented the existence of such a trust; that Hawkins knew that utilities presented a problem, but affirmatively represented they did not; that Hawkins knew that the developer would not pay for a Disney cruise, but represented that it would; that Hawkins knew that no insurance policy guaranteed the sale price of the homes; and that Hawkins knew the falsity of everything he promised, but promised it all anyway and then conceived a risk disclosure statement repudiating his promises in an effort to shield himself from liability. Moreover, from evidence of Hawkins’s role in every stage of the scheme, the jury could reasonably conclude that he not only acted to execute someone else’s scheme, but that he also had a hand in devising it.