Can Utah courts hold parties in contempt without proper statutory affidavits? Iota v. Davco Management Company Explained

In Iota v. Davco Management Company, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed critical procedural requirements for contempt proceedings, clarifying that statutory affidavit requirements are jurisdictional and cannot be bypassed even when adequate notice is otherwise provided.

Background and Facts

Davco Management purchased two apartment complexes using owner financing with promissory notes due in December 2007. When Davco failed to obtain refinancing, the notes went into default. During the period between default and foreclosure, the trial court issued an ex parte order requiring Davco to deposit collected rents with the court. Davco ignored this order and continued collecting rents until the February 2009 trustee’s sale. Plaintiffs later sought contempt citations against Davco in their trial brief and pretrial order, but never filed a proper statutory affidavit.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hold Davco in contempt without complying with Utah Code § 78B-6-302(2), which requires “an affidavit or statement of the facts by a judicial officer” for contempt not committed in the court’s immediate presence. Davco also raised defenses based on alleged oral contract modifications and breach of implied covenant claims.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the statutory affidavit requirement is jurisdictional, not merely procedural. Even though Plaintiffs argued their pleadings provided adequate due process notice, the court emphasized that the affidavit requirement serves purposes beyond due process and cannot be satisfied by arguments in trial briefs or pretrial orders. The court reversed the contempt citations but affirmed the deficiency judgments, finding that Davco’s oral contract defenses were barred by the statute of frauds and failed the part performance exception.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah’s contempt statute contains mandatory jurisdictional requirements that courts cannot overlook. Practitioners seeking contempt citations must file proper affidavits even when other pleadings provide detailed factual allegations. The ruling also demonstrates the strict application of the part performance exception to the statute of frauds, requiring that defendant’s actions be “exclusively referable” to the alleged oral contract.