The Utah Court of Appeals convened on September 25, 2025, to hear oral arguments in the case of 20231083-CWS v. Montgomery, focusing on a dispute over compensation and contractual obligations. The case centers on Scott Montgomery's claims regarding deferred compensation and the interpretation of the operating agreement governing his role as both a manager and owner of the company.

Beth Ranshaw, representing CWS, argued that the district court's summary judgment was flawed due to a mischaracterization of the facts surrounding the compensation dispute. Ranshaw emphasized that the court incorrectly stated that the issue of damages was not contested, despite evidence to the contrary presented in both written briefs and oral arguments. She asserted that Montgomery's claims of unauthorized compensation were based on an incomplete understanding of the contractual terms, which explicitly prohibited him from unilaterally altering his compensation structure without the approval of other owners.

Ranshaw highlighted that the operating agreement clearly defined the terms of compensation, including the timing and conditions under which salaries and bonuses were to be paid. She pointed out that Montgomery's actions in deferring his salary for over a decade resulted in a significant financial liability for the company, which was not anticipated by the other owners. The argument underscored that Montgomery's unilateral decisions violated the agreement's stipulations regarding managerial authority and financial obligations.

The court was urged to reconsider the summary judgment based on the factual disputes surrounding the case, particularly the interpretation of the operating agreement and the implications of Montgomery's actions. Ranshaw maintained that the evidence presented warranted a reversal of the lower court's decision, as it failed to account for the complexities of the contractual relationship and the responsibilities assigned to Montgomery as both a manager and an owner.

As the case progresses, the court's ruling will have significant implications for the interpretation of contractual agreements and the responsibilities of business managers in similar situations. The outcome may set a precedent for how compensation disputes are handled in the context of corporate governance and ownership rights.