Utah Court of Appeals
Can you contradict your own sworn statements to defeat summary judgment? Fowler v. McDougal Explained
Summary
Fowler sued her former divorce attorney for malpractice, claiming he failed to advise her about statutory alimony duration limits. However, Fowler had previously filed court documents stating that her attorney had informed her of the limitation. The district court granted summary judgment, finding Fowler’s contradictory statements could not create a genuine issue of material fact.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important evidentiary principle in Fowler v. McDougal, holding that parties cannot create genuine issues of material fact by contradicting their own prior sworn statements without adequate explanation.
Background and Facts
Bonnie Fowler obtained a 1996 divorce decree requiring her husband to pay alimony and child support totaling $900 monthly. In 2012, her husband successfully terminated alimony based on Utah’s statutory limitation that alimony cannot exceed the duration of the marriage. Fowler then sued her former divorce attorney, Don Schow, claiming legal malpractice for failing to advise her about the statutory alimony duration limits. However, Fowler had previously filed an objection in the divorce case stating that “[m]y attorney, Don Scow [sic], referred to alimony being limited.”
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Fowler could create a genuine issue of material fact for her malpractice claim by filing an affidavit contradicting her prior sworn court statements. The court also addressed claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, applying the judicial proceeding privilege.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the established rule that “an affidavit, as a matter of law, cannot contradict [a] prior sworn statement . . . which was clear and unequivocal, [unless] the affidavit [] state[s] an adequate reason for the contradiction.” The court found Fowler’s prior statement that her attorney had informed her of alimony limitations was clear and unequivocal, directly contradicting her malpractice allegations. The court also held that the judicial proceeding privilege barred the defamation and emotional distress claims based on statements made during litigation.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the importance of consistency in court filings and the difficulty of overcoming prior admissions. Attorneys should carefully review clients’ litigation history before filing new claims. The ruling also demonstrates how the judicial proceeding privilege protects statements made in the course of litigation, even in subsequent legal malpractice cases.
Case Details
Case Name
Fowler v. McDougal
Citation
2015 UT App 194
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150394-CA
Date Decided
August 6, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A plaintiff cannot create a genuine issue of material fact for legal malpractice by contradicting her prior sworn statements in court filings without providing an adequate explanation for the discrepancy.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment rulings are reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
Document client communications thoroughly and preserve records of advice given, as prior court filings can preclude contradictory claims in subsequent litigation.
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.