Can Utah courts release a lis pendens filed for out-of-state litigation? Meritage Companies v. Gross Explained

Background and Facts

AKMeritage recorded a lis pendens in Weber County, Utah, concerning North Ogden properties owned by Meritage Companies LLC. The lis pendens gave notice of a pending lawsuit in Alaska between the parties. Meritage filed a petition in Utah district court seeking to release the lis pendens, require AKMeritage to post a guarantee, and obtain injunctive relief, claiming the lis pendens was delaying its development project.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented three issues: (1) whether a Utah court could release a lis pendens referencing litigation pending in Alaska, (2) whether the court could require posting of a guarantee, and (3) whether injunctive relief was appropriate. The central question involved interpreting Utah Code section 78B-6-1304(1), which governs motions to release lis pendens notices.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of all relief. Under section 78B-6-1304(1), a party may move for release of a lis pendens only in “the court in which the action is pending.” Since the underlying litigation was pending in Alaska, only the Alaska court had statutory authority to address the motion for release. The court rejected Meritage’s attempts to characterize the action as a quiet title proceeding or wrongful lien claim, noting the petition was expressly filed under section 78B-6-1304. Regarding the guarantee request, the court found the statutory language permissive, making denial within the district court’s discretion. Finally, the court held that Meritage could not circumvent the statutory directive by recasting its request as injunctive relief.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s lis pendens statute requires jurisdictional alignment between the court hearing the release motion and the court where the underlying action is pending. Practitioners cannot forum shop by filing lis pendens release motions in Utah courts when the substantive litigation occurs elsewhere. The ruling also demonstrates the importance of properly pleading alternative theories of relief, as the court strictly construed the petition’s explicit reliance on section 78B-6-1304.