Utah Court of Appeals
Does defamation per se guarantee substantial damages in Utah? Westmont Mirador v. Miller Explained
Summary
Westmont sued Miller and Nelson for defamation per se after they called the company ‘crooks’ and ‘scam artists’ online. The district court entered default judgment and awarded only nominal damages of one dollar, despite finding the statements constituted defamation per se.
Analysis
In Westmont Mirador v. Miller, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified a crucial distinction in defamation per se law that practitioners must understand when advising clients about potential recoveries.
Background and Facts
Westmont Mirador, LLC and Terry Foote sued Joshua Miller and Brad Nelson after the defendants made online comments calling the company “crooks” and “scam artists.” When Miller and Nelson failed to answer the complaint, the district court entered a default judgment. The court determined that the defendants’ statements constituted defamation per se because they charged conduct incompatible with operating a lawful business. However, the court awarded only one dollar in nominal damages, declining to award compensatory or punitive damages.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether courts must award substantial damages in defamation per se cases where damages are legally presumed. Westmont argued that because damages are presumed, the court was required to award sufficient damages to discourage future defamation.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the nominal damage award, holding that presumed damages in defamation per se cases serve as a procedural mechanism that relieves plaintiffs of proving damages as an element of their prima facie case. The court emphasized that presumed harm does not require courts to presume any particular amount of damages beyond nominal damages. The court also noted that Westmont failed to adequately brief its argument with proper legal analysis and authority.
Practice Implications
This decision has significant implications for defamation practitioners. Clients should understand that defamation per se designation does not guarantee substantial monetary recovery. The presumption of damages merely eliminates the burden of proving harm occurred, but actual damage awards may still be minimal. Additionally, the court’s emphasis on adequate briefing serves as a reminder that appellate arguments must include detailed legal analysis beyond mere citation to authority.
Case Details
Case Name
Westmont Mirador v. Miller
Citation
2014 UT App 209
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20130985-CA
Date Decided
September 5, 2014
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
In defamation per se cases, presumed damages relieve the plaintiff of proving damages as an element but do not require courts to award substantial monetary damages beyond nominal damages.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding damage measurement rules
Practice Tip
When briefing damage issues on appeal, provide detailed legal analysis and authority beyond mere citation to cases, as inadequate briefing will result in waiver of the argument.
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.