Utah Court of Appeals hears dispute over “pick‑me” letters, fraud claims and damage awards in Capizzoli v. Madden

Sitting en banc for oral argument, Judge Ryan Tenney presided over a three-judge panel that heard debate on Capizzoli v. Madden, a dispute arising from the sale of a flood-damaged house and counterclaims premised on soliciting "pick‑me" letters. Counsel for the buyer and seller sparred over whether statements of present intent in solicitation letters can support a fraud claim and whether the damages awarded for flood remediation were tied to record evidence.

The appeal centers on two core issues. First, appellant counsel Jake Hinkins argued that the trial court’s damage findings included assertions—most notably that damage was "primarily to the kitchen"—that lacked record support and therefore undermined the award. Hinkins said parts of the remediation work (including removal of some kitchen flooring) were performed after the buyer arrived and that the court had relied on facts not in evidence. "If somebody comes in and... the auto body shop bangs it up even more, you don't get to come in and say, 'Hey, I get these damages too because the auto body shop broke my car,'" Hinkins told the panel to illustrate his point that unrelated…