Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts consider conduct from other cases when determining vexatious litigant status? Strand v. Nupetco Associates Explained
Summary
Nupetco Associates LLC moved to have Michael Strand declared a vexatious litigant under Rule 83 based on his litigation conduct in other cases. The district court denied the motion, reasoning it could not assess Strand’s conduct in other lawsuits and that the rule only applied to conduct in the pending case.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Nupetco Associates LLC and Michael Strand had been embroiled in multiple legal disputes over ownership of a Utah residence for many years. Frustrated with Strand’s litigation tactics, Nupetco moved under Rule 83 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to have Strand declared a vexatious litigant. The district court denied the motion, concluding it could not assess Strand’s conduct in other lawsuits and that none of the alleged vexatious conduct occurred in the case before it.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether Rule 83 permits a court to find a litigant vexatious based entirely on conduct in other cases, or whether the rule requires vexatious conduct to have occurred in the pending action. Specifically, the court examined subsections 83(a)(1)(B) and 83(a)(1)(C), which define when a person may be deemed a vexatious litigant.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Rule 83 authorizes courts to consider a litigant’s conduct across multiple cases. The court applied correctness review to the district court’s interpretation of the civil procedure rule. Analyzing the plain language of Rule 83(a)(1)(B) and (C), the court found nothing requiring that vexatious conduct occur in the pending action. The phrase “in any action” in subsection (C) means exactly that—any action, not just the current one. However, the court clarified that under subsection (C), the three or more proscribed acts must occur within a single lawsuit, as the rule refers to “action” (singular) not “actions” (plural).
Practice Implications
This first appellate interpretation of Utah’s vexatious litigant rule significantly broadens its scope. Practitioners can now seek vexatious litigant orders based on an opponent’s conduct across multiple cases, provided they can establish the required conduct by clear and convincing evidence. The decision emphasizes that while courts may find it easier to assess conduct they observed firsthand, Rule 83 focuses on the evidentiary standard rather than geographic limitations on reviewable conduct.
Case Details
Case Name
Strand v. Nupetco Associates
Citation
2017 UT App 55
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20151016-CA
Date Decided
March 30, 2017
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Rule 83 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to find a litigant vexatious based on conduct in other lawsuits, not just the pending action.
Standard of Review
Correctness for interpretation of rules of civil procedure
Practice Tip
When filing vexatious litigant motions under Rule 83, gather clear and convincing evidence of the opposing party’s conduct across all relevant cases, as courts may consider conduct beyond the pending action.
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.