Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court hears dispute over when construction work "commenced" and whether lien statements were false
Summary
In oral argument in Latu Investments v. Granio, attorneys disputed whether the district court plainly erred in finding lien claim deadlines met and whether statements that contracts were "signed" were materially false; the panel pressed counsel on standards for review, the meaning of "commence," and whether text messages could create a contract.
A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Latu Investments v. Granio (No. 20240537), a dispute arising from a mechanics lien and the district court’s finding that the lien contained false statements. Attorney Steven Florence, representing appellant Oscar Grenier, told the court his client raised two errors: (1) the trial court failed to apply the correct test for when work “commenced” under Utah’s construction-lien statute, and (2) the court erred by concluding no contract existed between the parties.
The argument centered early on whether the panel could evaluate the first claim under plain-error review. Florence acknowledged he had presented the issue as a plain-error claim and cited Cove at Little…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
