Can Utah courts grant summary judgment based on inadmissible evidence? Smith v. Kirkland Explained

In Smith v. Kirkland, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a district court can grant summary judgment based on inadmissible evidence when reconsidering previously denied motions. This case provides important guidance for appellate practitioners about evidentiary requirements in successive summary judgment motions.

Background and Facts

The dispute arose from the Terrestrial Kingdom of God Trust, where beneficiaries sued trustees Penn Smith and Valden Cram for breach of fiduciary duty and improper self-compensation. The district court initially denied the trustees’ first motion for summary judgment on breach and compensation issues, finding “genuine issues of material fact” and reserving these matters for trial. Forty-five days later, without any intervening discovery, the trustees filed a second motion for summary judgment on identical issues, supported by only two additional documents.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether the district court properly granted the second summary judgment motion when the new evidence was inadmissible. The trustees submitted a 2007 arbitration decision and a “Trust Management Example” fee schedule to support their position. The beneficiaries argued both documents were inadmissible and that law of the case doctrine precluded relitigating the same issues.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals applied correctness review to the legal conclusions underlying the summary judgment grant. The court found both new documents inadmissible: the arbitration decision was irrelevant because it explicitly avoided resolving matters before the district court, and the fee schedule was unauthenticated under Utah Rule of Evidence 901 and failed to support the trustees’ reasonableness claims. The court emphasized that inadmissible evidence cannot support summary judgment and that courts should not grant such motions when aware of genuine factual disputes.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that successive summary judgment motions require genuinely new, admissible evidence. While district courts retain discretion to reconsider prior rulings, they cannot rely on unauthenticated documents or irrelevant evidence to reverse course. The court also clarified that Rule 56 requirements for personal knowledge and proper citation to supporting materials remain essential even in unopposed motions.