The following are cases representing somewhat common fact patterns that have been resolved by this Law Firm. The results in these matters are no guaranty of future results and are only meant as interesting examples of prior work and experience. Because this law firm has a strict confidentiality policy, the names of the parties or litigants have been omitted.
Law Firm has evicted countless non-paying or slow paying tenants. The following fact pattern has been repeated numerous times: Law Firm represented an apartment Owner; Tenant was behind on the rent. Law Firm posted an appropriate eviction notice, Tenant, who has typically started to evade the Owner, did not respond. Law Firm filed an Eviction Complaint and Tenant was served. Tenant, who had been evicted many times previously responded with a one page hand written response to the Court alleging that the leased premises was unfit for habitation. Result: Owner awarded possession at immediate occupancy hearing and Tenant was subsequently forcibly removed. Time between the day Owner called Law Firm and the day Tenant was forcibly removed: 22 days. Tenant defaulted in the subsequent damages portion of the eviction lawsuit and Owner was awarded monetary judgment by the Court against Tenant for rent, treble rent, and attorney fees.Result: Tenant's wages are currently being garnished.
Law Firm represented Landlord who owned a completely fenced auto mechanic's shop close to a baseball diamond. Landlord had a large dog which roamed inside the fenced shop. A drunk spectator leaving from a baseball game began to taunt the dog, and stick her head through the wrought iron fence bars. The dog bit the spectator in the face doing significant damage and Landlord had no insurance covering the incident. Predictably, the spectator sued the Landlord for damage caused by the dog bite. Law Firm found witnesses substantiating that the spectator's actions caused the incident, and marshalled the case law showing that Utah's "Strict Liability" rules regarding damages caused by animals are still subject to comparitive negligence standards. With witnesses and case law, Law Firm discouraged three separate personal injury attorneys from pursuing the case.Result: No liability to Landlord.
Law firm represented the Owner of a residence which had been flooded by several natural disasters causing almost $100K in damages. Owner was approached by Defendant, who fraudulently represented himself as a general contractor, giving Owner an attractive quote to repair the damaged residence. Defendant, it turned out, was not a contractor, and took significant money from the Owner while not finishing the restoration of the premises promised. On behalf of the Owner, Law Firm sued Defendant for fraud, and received a default Judgment in an amount exceeding $70K; Defendant subsequently declared a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy attempting to discharge the Judgment. Law Firm followed Defendant into the Bankruptcy Court in an adversary proceeding, and on behalf of Owner, got a stipulated Judgment that the debt to Owner was non-dischargeable in Bankruptcy.Result: Owner is currently garnishing Defendant and has received several lump-sum settlement proposals from Defendant.
Law Firm represented a multi-state manufactured goods Distributor which had vendors throughout the country. One of the Vendors, a resident of the State of Washington, defaulted on his five-figure contractual obligations to Distributor and Law Firm filed a lawsuit in Utah to liquidate damages. The lawsuit was originally contested by the Vendor, but was defeated in a Summary Judgment proceeding which resulted in a Judgment in favor of the Distributor. Law Firm subsequently domesticated the Utah Judgment in Washington which became a lien on Vendor's personal residence which was in the process of being sold. The Distributor's lien stopped the then pending sale of Vendor's residence.Result: Distributor was fully paid.
Law Firm represented the Purchaser of a multi-unit apartment complex who was told that the property was fully leased with year leases. At full occupancy, the complex made significant cash flow, and on that basis the purchaser offered a purchase price based on an 8% capitalization rate of return. The Purchaser was not told that in order to fill the complex, most of the tenants had received significant terms of free rent to execute leases, a fact concealed by the former owner, and allegedly the real estate agent. Theory: Purchaser had paid a purchase price based on a represented level of occupancy which had been artificially inflated, and had been damaged by the difference between the purchase price of the property which was based on the cash flow of the complex represented to be at full occupancy, and the cash flow at actual occupancy.Result: Settlement in favor of Purchaser.
Law Firm represented Lender who loaned $250K to a real estate Developer for the acquisition of building lots; Lender was secured by a promissory note, and Trust Deeds on collateral building lots. Developer failed to repay. Law Firm filed appropriate Notices of Default and subsequently foreclosed on the collateral lots. At the time of foreclosure, the collateral lots were worth less than the amount due under the promissory note. Law Firm filed lawsuit against Developer seeking damages based on the difference between the amounts owed under the note, and the value of the collateral property at the time of foreclosure, a classic "deficiency" brought under Utah's "One Action Rule". In the course of discovery and trial preparation, Law Firm demonstrated the deficiency.actual occupancy.Result: Settlement and Stipulated Judgment in favor of the Lender.
Law Firm represented Defendant who was charged with two separate felony complaints alleging separate violations of prior protective orders, prohibiting Defendant from coming in contact with Defendant's ex spouse. Defendant was adamant that he had not violated the protective orders on either occasion and that the reports alleging Defendant's violation had been falsely concocted by the ex-spouse. Law Firm investigated both criminal allegations developing and substantiating alibi information proving that it was physically impossible for Defendant to have violated the protective orders in either case, and that the claims of the ex-spouse were false.Result: In a relatively rare occurrence, the State dismissed both felony lawsuits against Defendant.
Law Firm represented Defendant who was operating a motor vehicle which struck a bicyclist then riding across the street inside a crosswalk. The Defendant's vehicle did significant damage to the cyclist and Defendant was charged by the municipality with failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. After examining the facts of the matter and investigating the municipality's laws, Law Firm developed the theory that there is no such thing as a pedestrian on a bicycle.Result: Prosecutors for the municipality eventually conceded that no criminal act took place, and charges against the Defendant were dismissed.
Law Firm represented Defendant who several years prior to representation by Law Firm earlier pled "no contest" to a Class A misdemeanor aggravated assault related to a bar fight. Defendant was a permanent resident, and unbeknownst to Defendant, his prior plea, originally undiscovered by the Immigration Authorities, made him "removable" from the United States. The BCIS discovered the plea when Defendant applied to become a Citizen of the United States and immediately sought to remove Defendant from the United States. The BCIS removal action was a catastrophe for Defendant who was married and had several small children in the United States. Law Firm developed significant case law and a legal theory as to why the prior assault conviction should be retroactively vacated; the District Attorney agreed and Defendant's prior plea stricken.Result: BCIS did not remove Defendant; he is now a Citizen of the United States.
Law Firm represented a Taxpayer who was delinquent in the filing of state and federal tax returns, and payment of large past due income taxes to both taxing authorities. The amount of tax due was being dramatically increased by IRS interest and penalties. Law Firm worked on behalf of Taxpayer to file past due returns, and develop theories justifiably explaining the failure to timely file the tax returns and timely pay tax. In response, the IRS abated most of the penalties and recalculated and reduced interest. Law Firm then negotiated an installment agreement under which Taxpayer could then pay the federal tax due over time.Result: Taxpayer can sleep at night.