Utah Court of Appeals
Can an assignee of lease rents avoid the lessee's setoff rights? Kirton McConkie v. ASC Utah Explained
Summary
Kirton McConkie received an assignment of Wolf Mountain’s right to receive rents from ASC Utah under a ground lease to secure payment of attorney fees. After ASC Utah obtained a $60 million judgment against Wolf Mountain for breach of the lease, the trial court allowed ASC Utah to set off its annual rent payment against the judgment. The district court ruled on summary judgment that ASC Utah’s setoff right took priority over Kirton McConkie’s assignment.
Analysis
In Kirton McConkie v. ASC Utah, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether an assignment of lease rental rights can shield the assignee from the lessee’s contractual setoff rights against the lessor.
Background and Facts
ASC Utah leased property from Wolf Mountain under a ground lease requiring substantial annual rent payments. When ASC Utah sued Wolf Mountain for breach of the lease, Wolf Mountain retained Kirton McConkie for legal representation. Shortly before trial, to secure payment of mounting attorney fees, Wolf Mountain assigned its right to receive rents from ASC Utah to Kirton McConkie. After trial, ASC Utah obtained a $60 million judgment against Wolf Mountain. ASC Utah then moved to set off its upcoming annual rent payment against the judgment, which the court granted despite a lease provision prohibiting setoffs.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Kirton McConkie’s assignment of rental rights created a superior interest that defeated ASC Utah’s setoff rights. Kirton McConkie argued it owned the rent “free and clear” because the assignment preceded the judgment. ASC Utah countered that as an assignee, Kirton McConkie could acquire no greater rights than Wolf Mountain possessed.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the fundamental principle that an assignee “stands in the shoes of the assignor” and “never stands in a better position than the assignor.” The assignment of rental rights was not a simple property conveyance but involved contractual rights subject to the lessee’s correlative rights under the lease. The court emphasized that allowing the assignment to defeat ASC Utah’s setoff rights would “materially enlarge the risk” to ASC Utah beyond what it agreed to under the original lease and would effectively require ASC Utah to pay Wolf Mountain’s attorney fees.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that contractual assignments cannot insulate assignees from the obligor’s defensive rights against the assignor. Practitioners should carefully analyze existing contractual relationships when structuring fee security arrangements through assignments. The court distinguished cases involving simple judgment liens against property from setoff rights arising from the same contractual relationship. Additionally, the decision highlights perfection requirements—even though Kirton McConkie’s assignment preceded the judgment temporally, ASC Utah perfected its judgment lien before Kirton McConkie properly recorded its assignment.
Case Details
Case Name
Kirton McConkie v. ASC Utah
Citation
2016 UT App 200
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140798-CA
Date Decided
September 22, 2016
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
An assignee of lease rental rights stands in the shoes of the assignor and takes subject to the lessee’s contractual setoff rights against the lessor.
Standard of Review
Correctness for conclusions of law arising from summary judgment
Practice Tip
When advising clients on lease assignment strategies for fee security, ensure the assignment addresses potential setoff rights and consider recording requirements for perfection against third-party creditors.
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.