Appeal over escrow and interpleader immunity argued before Court of Appeals in Old Republic v. Cap Fund 783

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Old Republic National Title v. Cap Fund 783 over whether the district court improperly granted summary judgment on claims arising from an escrowed real-estate transaction and a disputed assignment fee.

Appellants' counsel argued that the district court erred by resolving claims on interpleader-immunity grounds without addressing disputed factual elements and that an amended pleading raised issues (including breach of fiduciary duty and tortious-interference claims) that require remand so the trial court can analyze the merits. Appellants said a prior district-court order naming a different person as manager/owner of Cap Fund does not moot live disputes and does not prevent the appeal from proceeding.

Old Republic’s counsel, Justin Star, told the panel that interpleader immunity might not be dispositive for all amended claims but argued the title company owed duties primarily to the transactional parties who hired it (the buyer and the seller), not to third-party assignees in all circumstances. Star emphasized that any shortfall in funds, he said, would be a remedy against the buyer (identified in the record as 92057) rather than the title company that followed the buyer’s written settlement instructions.

The panel delved into multiple procedural and factual questions: whether an interim district-court order declaring Shane Baker the owner/manager of Cap Fund affects the appellant’s standing or the company’s ability to pursue the appeal; whether Old Republic’s summary-judgment motion focused on the correct legal grounds after the complaint was amended; and whether the evidence in the record creates triable issues about whether Old Republic complied with the assignment addendum and collected the agreed assignment fee.

Appellants asked the Court of Appeals to reverse the summary judgment as to the affected claims and remand for the district court to evaluate the merits on a full record. Old Republic asked the court to affirm, arguing appellants’ pleading and record concessions (including an alleged lack of timely objection at closing) support disposition in the title company’s favor.

The court took the matter under advisement and will issue a written decision.

Why it matters: The decision will clarify the scope of interpleader immunity for title/escrow agents, the nature of duties owed to parties and assignees in assignment-of-contract transactions, and whether certain procedural rulings preclude appellate review of disputed factual claims.

What’s next: The Court of Appeals will issue a written opinion after taking the arguments under advisement.