Developer’s Case Against Bank of Utah Resurrected*

April 30, 2012 - PRLog -- This past year, a developer in Park City, Utah was involved in a dispute with the Bank of Utah. This luxury home developer was not only facing summary judgment in court, but his attorney was attempting to withdraw from the case and leave his client when he needed him most. His $6 million property as well as his $3.5 million personal residence were both under foreclosure and everyone believed the situation to be hopeless. At this point, The Layfield Law Firm stepped in and took charge of the case. The team used all of their years of experience and skill to formulate a defense strategy for the developer.

Bank of Utah Ordered to Release Developer’s Personal Home

The Bank of Utah had liens of $5 million on both the development property and the developer’s personal home which is commonly referred to as a construction deed of trust with multiple forms of collateral. A lien is a legal claim on some kind of property, real or not real. If there is a lien on the property, the borrower (in this case the developer) is not able to sell it if the lender asserts that the balance of the lien is greater than the fair market value of the property. In fact, the lender may be able to force the property into foreclosure in order to be repaid. The Bank of Utah possessed these liens and was doing everything in their power to seize ownership of the developer’s assets. The Bank of Utah first began non-judicial foreclosure proceedings and then switched to judicial foreclosure.  In this instance, however, the tables were dramatically turned on them with the help of the team at The Layfield Law Firm. The Layfield Law Firm was granted a short window over a Thanksgiving weekend to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, and The Third District Court of Utah found that the bank was, in fact, in the wrong on two of the developer’s remaining claims. Specifically, the Court found that the “Bank breached [the loan agreement] by failing to release the lien on [the developer’s] personal home” and ordered the Bank of Utah to do so.

The Court found that the Bank was obligated by a “binding commitment to release the Trust Deed” on the developer’s home and was “not entitled to commence any sort of foreclosure proceedings against [the developer’s home].” Finally, the Court found that Bank of Utah’s failure to release the home “was a violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as a matter of law.”


Bank of Utah Failed to Disclose Documents

After this successful outcome, litigation continued on other issues in the case. Just two months before trial was set to begin in this matter the team at The Layfield Law Firm discovered that Bank of Utah failed to disclose a large number of documents related to the developer’s loan that the developer’s former attorney requested in August 2010. These documents were crucial to the developer’s claims against the bank. After The Layfield Law Firm brought this failure to the Court’s attention, the Court agreed, and ordered the Bank of Utah to produce the documents.

The Court determined that these documents were “critical, occurring at and after December 2009, the time that the Bank…fail[ed] to release the lien.” The Court went on to say that “the Bank simply did not take reasonable steps to comply with its…obligations” and that it “failed to conduct even the most minimal electronic search.”  In issuing a ruling regarding these failures, “the Court concludes that [the developer was] materially prejudiced by the Bank’s failures to produce documents.” The Bank of Utah’s failure to disclose was so significant that, “to mitigate the prejudice [to the developer] caused by the Bank’s inadequate document production,” the Court effectively restarted the discovery in the case.

Court Allows Developer to Pursue Tortious Interference Claim Against Bank of Utah

Prior to the Bank’s failure to disclose being brought to the Court’s attention, the Court found that the developer lacked evidence to show that the Bank of Utah acted with an improper purpose in failing to release the lien on his personal residence. The Court reconsidered its position, however, after learning that the Bank of Utah failed to produce “approximately 4,545 pages of documents that were plainly requested” and that the developer should be allowed to “seek additional discovery” on this issue. To that end, the team at The Layfield Law Firm has already taken ten depositions of current and former officers and directors of Bank of Utah. Although other issues in this case are still being litigated, no one could have foreseen this amount of success when it appeared that all hope was lost. However, it only proves that the legal representative that is on your side could make all the difference in the outcome of your case.

Get the Business Litigation Team at The Layfield Law Firm Working for You

If you have a current or potential case against the Bank of Utah, contact the litigation team at The Layfield Law Firm.  The Layfield Law Firm is dedicated to serving those who have found themselves in business disputes, breaches of contract, foreclosure, and much more. With over 11 years of experience in business ligation law, their clients can have peace of mind knowing that a qualified and skilled attorney is on their side fighting for their best interests. You can call their office or visit their website at http://www.PJLLawFirm.com.

For additional information please contact Philip J. Layfield at 424-835-6100.

*On April 13, 2012, The Layfield Law Firm issued a press release entitled “Law Firm Obtains Summary Judgment Regarding Bank’s Breach of Contract.” On April 23, 2012, counsel for the Bank of Utah sent a letter to Mr. Layfield asserting that the release contained “false and defamatory statements” and demanding that The Layfield Law Firm issue a retraction. This article serves as a clarification and update of the prior press release. To avoid any confusion, the language of the Court is taken from the Memorandum Decision on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, dated July 6, 2011, which can be found at https://layfieldlaw.box.com/s/72d4429a38fad7e33b75, and the Memorandum Decision and Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ 3/15/12 Motion to Reconsider, which can be found at https://layfieldlaw.box.com/s/72d4429a38fad7e33b75.