Can Utah judges award attorney fees to prevailing parties when contracts specify defaulting party standards? Blackmore v. L&D Development Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Blackmore v. L&D Development addressed important questions about judicial recusal, the law of the case doctrine, and attorney fee awards in contract disputes. The case provides crucial guidance for practitioners handling complex development agreements and attorney fee provisions.

Background and Facts

Blackmore entered into a development agreement with Shadow Canyon to develop real property in Washington County. Under the agreement, Blackmore was to pay certain debts and fees while Shadow Canyon would transfer the property to their joint venture. Blackmore performed some obligations but failed to pay $50,000 or property taxes. Shadow Canyon never transferred title and ultimately sold the property to a third party. After the original judge recused himself following a partial reversal on appeal, a new judge set aside a previous summary judgment order favorable to Blackmore. At trial, the jury found Shadow Canyon materially breached the contract but that Blackmore had abandoned its rights under the agreement.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: whether the original judge properly recused himself, whether the replacement judge could set aside the prior summary judgment order under the law of the case doctrine, and whether attorney fees should be awarded under the contract’s “defaulting party” provision or Utah’s Reciprocal Attorney Fees Statute.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed the judge’s recusal decision, noting that judges may recuse themselves sua sponte when circumstances might reasonably question their impartiality, regardless of whether a formal motion is filed. The court also upheld the new judge’s authority to reconsider the prior interlocutory order, explaining that replacement judges constitute the same judicial office and retain discretion to modify prior rulings not addressed on appeal. However, the court reversed the attorney fee award, holding that when contracts specify defaulting party standards, courts cannot substitute prevailing party analysis under the Reciprocal Attorney Fees Statute.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of precise contract drafting regarding attorney fee provisions. Practitioners should clearly specify whether fees are recoverable by the “prevailing party” or must be paid by the “defaulting party,” as Utah courts will strictly enforce the contractual language. The ruling also confirms that contract abandonment can defeat claims for attorney fees, even when the other party materially breached first.