Pyper v. Bond

258 P.3d 575 (Utah 2011) · Supreme Court of Utah · July 29, 2011 · No. No. 20091025

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court held that gross inadequacy of price combined with slight circumstances of unfairness may justify setting aside a sheriff's sale after the redemption period has expired. The court concluded that these circumstances can create an unrebutted presumption of fraud and constitute a compelling equitable basis for relief. It affirmed the Utah Court of Appeals' decision, while two justices concurred in part and dissented regarding whether the defendants' conduct was unfair.

Court
Supreme Court of Utah
Writing for the Court
Associate Chief Justice Durrant; Chief Justice Durham; Justice Nehring; Justice Lee; Justice Parrish
Jurisdiction
Utah
Decision date
July 29, 2011
Docket number
No. 20091025
Procedural posture
On certiorari review of the Utah Court of Appeals' affirmance of a district court order setting aside a sheriff's sale of real property.
Standard of review
On certiorari, the court reviews the court of appeals' decision for correctness and gives no deference to its conclusions of law. A district court's decision to set aside a sheriff's sale is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published, precedential Utah Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Justin C. Bond, Dale M. Dorius v. David Pyper, Estate of Mollie Maxine Pyper
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

real estateremediesequitable reliefappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

Civil procedureReal estate lawEquitable remediesJudicial sales and redemption

Questions Presented

  1. Whether gross inadequacy of price together with slight circumstances of unfairness may justify setting aside a sheriff's sale after expiration of the redemption period.
  2. Whether the conduct of Bond and Dorius constituted at least slight circumstances of unfairness warranting equitable relief.

Holdings

  1. Gross inadequacy of price together with slight circumstances of unfairness caused by the conduct of the party benefiting from the sale may, unless the resulting presumption of fraud is rebutted, constitute a compelling circumstance justifying extension of the redemption period or setting aside the sheriff's sale.
  2. The attorneys' conduct during the redemption period, including discussing Pyper's proposed payoff while failing to follow up or provide a payoff amount, constituted at least slight circumstances of unfairness when combined with the grossly inadequate sale price.

Key quotations

Rather than creating a new standard, our statement in Huston merely synthesized and articulated the standard that we have consistently applied in our cases in the sheriff's sale context. (258 P.3d at 579-80)
We also disagree with the Appellants' argument that a showing of gross inadequacy of price together with slight circumstances of unfairness is not sufficient to set aside a sheriff's sale. (258 P.3d at 580)

Factual background

A law firm obtained a judgment for unpaid attorney fees against David Pyper and enforced the judgment through a lien and sheriff's sale of his home. The home, valued at approximately $125,000, was purchased by Justin Bond, the sole bidder, for $329. Before the six-month redemption period expired, Pyper repeatedly contacted Bond and Dale Dorius, expressed his desire to satisfy the judgment, and offered $8,500, but the attorneys did not provide a payoff amount or follow up. The district court found gross inadequacy of price and slight circumstances of unfairness and set aside the sale.

Procedural history

The district court set aside the sheriff's sale after finding that the sale price was grossly inadequate and that the purchasers' conduct created slight circumstances of unfairness. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. The Utah Supreme Court granted the purchasers' petition for certiorari and affirmed the court of appeals.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…