Utah Court of Appeals
What is the proper scope of a prejudgment writ of attachment under Utah law? Blackmore v. L&D Development, Inc. Explained
Summary
Defendants sought interlocutory review of a trial court’s grant of a writ of attachment that transferred property and funds to plaintiffs based on their substantial likelihood of success on breach of contract claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of the writ but vacated the remedy to the extent it exceeded the proper scope of prejudgment attachment.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Blackmore v. L&D Development, Inc., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the proper scope and remedy available under a prejudgment writ of attachment, providing important guidance for practitioners seeking provisional remedies in contract disputes.
Background and Facts
Plaintiffs obtained a writ of attachment against defendants based on their substantial likelihood of success on underlying breach of contract claims. The trial court not only granted the writ but also transferred the attached property and funds directly to plaintiffs. Defendants sought interlocutory review, challenging both the trial court’s determination of substantial likelihood of success and the scope of the remedy ordered.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two primary issues: whether the trial court properly determined that plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood of success under Utah Rule 64A, and whether the court exceeded its authority by transferring attached assets to plaintiffs rather than sequestering them.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals found no manifest error in the trial court’s substantial likelihood determination and affirmed the grant of the writ of attachment. However, the court held that the trial court exceeded the proper scope of a prejudgment writ by transferring property directly to plaintiffs. Citing In re McNeely and Bristol v. Brent, the court emphasized that attachment is a “provisional remedy” designed to protect property until final disposition, not to effect an immediate transfer of ownership.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that prejudgment writs of attachment under Rule 64A must sequester assets rather than transfer them to the plaintiff. Practitioners should carefully tailor their requests to seek sequestration of disputed property pending final resolution. The court’s analysis also reinforces that execution-type remedies require final judgments and cannot be based on interlocutory orders, even when summary judgment has been granted but not certified as final under Rule 54(b).
Case Details
Case Name
Blackmore v. L&D Development, Inc.
Citation
2012 UT App 43
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100200-CA
Date Decided
February 16, 2012
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
A trial court may properly grant a prejudgment writ of attachment under Utah Rule 64A, but cannot transfer attached property directly to plaintiffs; instead, the property must be sequestered pending final resolution of the case.
Standard of Review
The opinion does not explicitly state the standard of review for the trial court’s writ of attachment determination
Practice Tip
When seeking prejudgment writs of attachment, ensure the requested remedy seeks sequestration of assets rather than outright transfer to avoid exceeding the proper scope of Rule 64A.
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.