Can trust beneficiaries file affidavits to contradict their deposition testimony? Anderton v. Boren Explained

In Anderton v. Boren, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trust beneficiaries can use affidavits to create genuine issues of fact after admitting in depositions they lack evidence to support their claims. The court’s analysis provides important guidance for trust litigation practitioners.

Background and Facts

Four trust beneficiaries sued the trustee, alleging embezzlement, self-dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty. During depositions, each plaintiff admitted they had no facts supporting their allegations and had not reviewed the accounting documents provided to them. The trustee moved for summary judgment based on these admissions. In response, one plaintiff filed a declaration making new factual assertions about the trustee’s conduct. The defendants moved to strike the declaration, arguing it contradicted deposition testimony and contained inadmissible opinions.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the district court properly struck the declaration under Rule 56(c)(4), and (2) whether summary judgment was appropriate given plaintiffs’ deposition admissions. The court also considered whether the declaration’s assertions could create genuine issues of material fact despite the earlier admissions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to strike the declaration on two grounds. First, it violated Utah precedent prohibiting affidavits that contradict deposition testimony without explanation. Second, and more importantly, the declaration contained inadmissible opinions rather than facts based on personal knowledge. The declarant made assertions “on information and belief” and offered financial opinions that exceeded permissible lay witness testimony under Rule 701. The court emphasized that “affidavits reflecting an affiant’s unsubstantiated conclusions and opinions are inadmissible.”

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that trust litigation requires concrete evidence, not speculation. Practitioners should conduct thorough factual investigations before filing trust disputes and avoid relying on clients’ admissions that they lack supporting evidence. When drafting affidavits in response to summary judgment motions, ensure all statements are based on personal knowledge and avoid conclusory opinions that exceed the scope of permissible lay testimony. The case also demonstrates that Utah courts will award attorney fees under section 75-7-1004 when beneficiaries pursue meritless claims against trustees.