Utah Supreme Court
Can Utah courts award attorney fees for meritless claims alone? Still Standing v. Allen Explained
Summary
Still Standing purchased property without access and filed suit against neighboring property owners to establish access rights through various legal theories. The trial court found the claims meritless and awarded attorney fees under section 78-27-56, concluding the action was brought in bad faith.
Analysis
In Still Standing Stable, LLC v. Allen, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical distinction in bad faith litigation that affects attorney fee awards throughout Utah civil practice.
Background and Facts
Still Standing purchased 170 acres in Ogden Valley despite clear warnings from the state that “there is likely no access” to the property. After purchasing the landlocked parcel, Still Standing sued neighboring property owners seeking to establish access through easements by implication and necessity, state and federal public road claims. The trial court ultimately rejected all claims as unsupported by evidence, finding Still Standing’s expert witness unpersuasive without corroborating documentation.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees under Utah Code section 78-27-56, which requires both that an action be “without merit” and brought in “bad faith.” Still Standing challenged only the bad faith finding, not the determination that its claims lacked merit.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court improperly conflated the “without merit” and “bad faith” requirements. The Court emphasized that section 78-27-56 requires an independent finding of bad faith based on the party’s subjective intent. Bad faith requires evidence of: (1) lack of honest belief in the propriety of the action; (2) intent to take unconscionable advantage; or (3) intent to hinder, delay, or defraud others. The trial court’s conclusion that Still Standing brought claims “knowing” they had no right of access was unsupported by the record.
Practice Implications
This decision protects litigants from attorney fee awards based solely on unsuccessful claims. Practitioners seeking fees under section 78-27-56 must present specific evidence of the opposing party’s bad faith subjective intent, beyond mere lack of merit. The decision also provides important protection for parties pursuing novel or uncertain legal theories in good faith.
Case Details
Case Name
Still Standing v. Allen
Citation
2005 UT 46
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20040354
Date Decided
July 22, 2005
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A trial court cannot award attorney fees under Utah Code section 78-27-56 based solely on lack of merit; it must make an independent finding of bad faith supported by evidence of the party’s subjective intent.
Standard of Review
Questions of law reviewed for correctness; factual findings reviewed for clear error
Practice Tip
When seeking attorney fees under section 78-27-56, ensure you present specific evidence of the opposing party’s subjective bad faith intent, not just evidence that their claims lack merit.
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
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.