Can Utah courts weigh conflicting evidence on summary judgment? Davis v. Sperry Explained

In Davis v. Sperry, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the fundamental principle that courts cannot weigh disputed evidence when ruling on summary judgment motions, reversing a trial court that improperly made credibility determinations about the parties’ intent regarding an ambiguous contract.

Background and Facts

Davis and Sperry formed a verbal partnership to purchase property in Rock Canyon. After Davis paid the entire final payment believing it constituted a buyout of Sperry’s interest, Sperry conveyed half his interest to Kapelow and later his remaining interest to Red Slab through an option agreement with Provo City. Davis sued claiming wrongful conveyance of partnership property. The trial court found the option agreement ambiguous regarding the exercise deadline but granted summary judgment based on extrinsic evidence from the parties’ attorneys about their intent.

Key Legal Issues

The central issues were whether the option agreement was ambiguous, whether extrinsic evidence regarding the parties’ intent was disputed, and whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on Davis’s claims against Sperry regarding the partnership relationship.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court agreed the option agreement was ambiguous due to conflicting provisions about the exercise deadline. However, it found the trial court erred in determining the extrinsic evidence was uncontradicted. Davis submitted a 312-page addendum containing sworn statements disputing the parties’ intent, including deposition testimony and email evidence. The court emphasized that “one sworn statement under oath is all that is needed to dispute the averments on the other side of the controversy and create an issue of fact, precluding the entry of summary judgment.” Regarding Sperry, the court noted the trial court improperly dismissed claims it had recognized were “incapable of determination by summary judgment” and made improper credibility determinations.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that summary judgment is inappropriate when material facts are disputed, regardless of how compelling evidence on one side may appear. Courts cannot weigh evidence or assess credibility at the summary judgment stage. Practitioners should submit detailed evidence, including sworn testimony, to create genuine issues of material fact when opposing summary judgment motions.