Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Litigation Fiduciary Duty topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears Litt’s claim that fiduciary concealment precluded summary judgment
Summary
In Litt v. Haney & Co., the appellant argues a longstanding fiduciary‑duty claim and alleged fraudulent concealment prevented summary judgment; defendants countered that the economic‑loss rule and statutory discovery deadlines bar the claims.
The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Litt v. Haney & Company, a civil appeal centered on whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on fiduciary‑duty and related claims arising from a real‑estate transaction.
Counsel for the appellant, John Mackey, told the panel the case rests on a fiduciary relationship and disputed factual issues that preclude summary judgment. "This case presents to us a duty in the law, a relationship in the law that is one of the most sacrosanct," Mackey said, urging that disputed evidence — including an alleged "secret" due‑diligence binder and retrospective appraisals — created triable issues about concealment and reliance.
Opposing counsel, Thomas Rollins, argued the economic‑loss rule and the applicable statute of limitations foreclose the surviving claims. Rollins told the court the remaining breach‑of‑fiduciary‑duty claim is governed by the four‑year catch‑all statute and that preservation problems arise because plaintiffs litigated below primarily as a fraud case with a different discovery framework.
A central dispute before the panel was whether the fiduciary‑duty allegations are independent of contract so as to avoid the economic‑loss rule and whether plaintiffs preserved an equitable‑discovery/fraudulent‑concealment argument tied to the four‑year statute. Judges questioned whether the parties adequately presented the applicable statute of limitations to the district court and whether late reliance on the equitable‑discovery rule created waiver or forfeiture issues.
Counsel debated whether earlier appraisals and communications should have put the plaintiff on inquiry notice, or whether a fiduciary’s alleged concealment on multiple occasions tolled the limitations period. Mackey urged reversal or remand so a jury can weigh competing factual accounts; Rollins urged affirmance on preservation and discovery grounds.
The panel took the matter under advisement and said it would issue a decision in due course.
