Can contractors preserve affirmative defenses through catchall pleading language? GDE Construction v. Leavitt Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in GDE Construction v. Leavitt addressed whether a general contractor could preserve the affirmative defense of mutual mistake through broad catchall language in its pleadings. The decision highlights critical pleading requirements that Utah practitioners must follow to avoid waiving important defenses.

Background and facts: GDE Construction served as general contractor on a home remodeling project that escalated from $900,000 to $2.4 million. After disputes arose, GDE filed an initial $140,000 mechanics’ lien. To induce GDE to release this lien, the homeowners provided a promissory note secured by other property. GDE then executed a Release of Mechanics’ Lien stating the claim was “fully paid and satisfied.” Two months later, GDE recorded a second lien for $150,000, followed by a third amended lien claiming over $563,000. When the homeowners moved for summary judgment claiming accord and satisfaction, GDE attempted to raise mutual mistake as a defense for the first time.

Key legal issues: The court examined whether GDE’s catchall pleading language preserved the mutual mistake defense and whether the signed lien release barred GDE’s subsequent lien claims. GDE’s answer included boilerplate language asserting “any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense as may be disclosed through discovery.” The trial court struck the mutual mistake defense as waived and granted summary judgment based on the lien release.

Court’s analysis and holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Rule 8(c) and Rule 9(b) requirements for pleading affirmative defenses. The court emphasized that mutual mistake is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pleaded, and Rule 9(b) requires that “circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.” GDE’s catchall language failed both requirements because it neither mentioned mutual mistake nor stated the relevant circumstances with particularity. The court rejected GDE’s argument that the catchall provision should preserve any defense discovered later, noting this would defeat the rules’ purpose of providing opposing parties adequate notice.

Practice implications: This decision reinforces that Utah practitioners cannot rely on boilerplate catchall language to preserve affirmative defenses. Defenses requiring particularity under Rule 9(b), such as fraud and mistake, must be specifically identified and pleaded with supporting factual allegations. The court’s analysis also demonstrates how signed releases can create insurmountable obstacles to subsequent claims, particularly when the release language is unambiguous about full satisfaction of the underlying debt.