Court of Appeals weighs mootness, tender and unwinding after post-order property conveyance

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Boyle v. Baum over whether a post-order conveyance and subsequent purchaser reliance render an appeal moot and whether the original buyers failed to tender performance required by the sale contract.

Dustin Hugeley (counsel for the appellant-defendant) told the panel that his clients were ordered by the trial court to close and that later conveyance documents and closing led to an irretrievable transaction; he argued the trial court's order was interlocutory and that seeking a stay would have been futile in the circumstances. "It would have been futile and that's what it is," Hugeley said when explaining why his clients did not seek a stay.

Counsel for the Boyles (Bridal Gibbs) said the Boyles took title via warranty deed without any reservations, moved into the house, paid closing costs and made alterations; she argued unwinding the transfer would create sprawling new disputes (improvements, changed financing conditions, and increased interest rates) that the court could not readily remedy. "It was absolutely futile to bring any money to the title company," Gibbs told the panel, describing lender and construction constraints that made immediate closing impracticable.

A core procedural disagreement before the panel was whether the appellant should have sought a stay or other interim relief after the trial-court order. The bench asked whether counsel pursued a stay, whether a Rule 54(b) certification route was available, and what relief the appellate court could fashion (rewinding the sale, awarding refund and damages, or fashioning prospective relief) if it reversed the trial court.

The lawyers also disputed factual points: whether the buyers had procured financing and tendered funds; whether the house was sufficiently complete for lender appraisal or to obtain a certificate of occupancy; and whether the title-company and lenders considered escrow or closing feasible before the scheduled settlement dates. The record includes communications among realtors, lender testimony about preapprovals, and a court-ordered spreadsheet of agreed upgrades to be completed by closing.

The panel did not announce a bench ruling. Judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a written opinion explaining whether the appeal can proceed and, if so, what relief may be available. The appellate panel's decision will determine whether and how the trial-court order can be enforced or unwound given the subsequent conveyance and purchaser reliance.