Utah Court of Appeals

What fiduciary duties does a trustee-beneficiary owe in Utah trust deed foreclosures? Five F v. Heritage Savings Explained

2003 UT App 373
No. 20020088-CA
November 6, 2003
Affirmed

Summary

Five F borrowed $1.2 million from Heritage Savings Bank, secured by a trust deed on real property with Heritage serving as both trustee and beneficiary. When Five F defaulted, Heritage conducted foreclosure sales in strict compliance with the trust deed statute and purchased the properties as the highest bidder. Five F sued for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical question in real estate finance: what fiduciary duties does a lender owe when it serves as both trustee and beneficiary under a trust deed? In Five F v. Heritage Savings, the court clarified the scope of these obligations during foreclosure proceedings.

Background and Facts

Five F borrowed $1.2 million from Heritage Savings Bank to purchase raw land in St. George, secured by a trust deed on the property and additional four-plexes. Under Utah law, Heritage served as both the beneficiary (lender) and trustee (entity authorized to conduct foreclosure). When Five F defaulted on the note, Heritage conducted foreclosure sales in strict compliance with Utah’s trust deed statute, ultimately purchasing the properties as the highest bidder at amounts below their appraised values.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Heritage’s dual role created an enhanced fiduciary duty requiring it to do more than comply with statutory foreclosure procedures. Five F also claimed Heritage breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and was liable for unjust enrichment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the Banberry Crossing criteria to determine whether an actionable fiduciary duty existed. These criteria require evidence that: (1) the trustor relied on the trustee’s guidance, (2) the trustee exercised extraordinary influence, or (3) the trustee held a dominant position. Finding no such evidence, the court held that Heritage’s fiduciary duty did not extend beyond statutory compliance. The court also rejected the good faith claim because Heritage followed the detailed statutory framework, and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim because an enforceable contract governed the relationship.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important boundaries for trust deed foreclosures in Utah. Practitioners representing borrowers must develop specific evidence under the Banberry Crossing criteria to establish actionable fiduciary duties beyond statutory compliance. The ruling also demonstrates that Utah’s comprehensive trust deed statute provides the framework for determining fair dealing, limiting additional implied covenant claims.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Five F v. Heritage Savings

Citation

2003 UT App 373

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20020088-CA

Date Decided

November 6, 2003

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A trustee-beneficiary’s fiduciary duty does not require it to do more than follow the requirements of the trust deed and Utah’s trust deed statute when conducting a foreclosure sale.

Standard of Review

Directed verdict reviewed under the same standard employed by the trial court – examining all evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party

Practice Tip

When representing trustor-borrowers challenging trust deed foreclosures, establish evidence under the Banberry Crossing criteria showing the trustee had extraordinary influence, a dominant position, or that the trustor relied on the trustee’s guidance to create an actionable fiduciary duty.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Muir v. Wasatch Front

    April 4, 2024

    A plaintiff must exercise reasonable diligence to determine if a potential defendant is a governmental entity when presented with inquiry notice indicators such as insurance by ‘Government Trust’ and an entity name containing ‘District.’
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Orem City v. Jakeman

    July 10, 2025

    A defendant’s conviction for child abuse is supported by sufficient evidence when he intentionally applies his knee to a child’s pressure point causing pain and bruising, and delayed transport to trial does not constitute structural error when adequate pre-trial consultation occurs.
    • Constitutional Rights (Criminal)
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    • |
    • Sufficiency of Evidence
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.