Utah Court of Appeals
Can defendants waive capacity-to-sue defenses by failing to raise them timely? Faucheaux v. Provo City Explained
Summary
Kevin Faucheaux sued Provo City for wrongful death after police officers responded to a welfare check but left his wife alone, who was later found dead from an apparent overdose. After successfully appealing a summary judgment dismissal, the case was remanded, but Provo City then moved to dismiss on grounds that the estate lacked capacity to bring a wrongful death suit.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals’ decision in Faucheaux v. Provo City provides important guidance on the distinction between standing and capacity to sue, and when defendants can waive capacity defenses through untimely assertion.
Background and Facts
Kevin Faucheaux called 911 for a welfare check on his wife Helen, who appeared to be overdosing. Provo City police officers responded but concluded she was merely intoxicated and left without seeking medical evaluation. Helen was found dead two hours later. Faucheaux sued for wrongful death, purportedly on behalf of his wife’s estate. After winning reversal of a summary judgment dismissal, Provo City moved to dismiss on remand, arguing the estate lacked capacity to bring a wrongful death suit under Utah Code section 78B-3-106.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether lack of capacity to sue is a jurisdictional defect that can be raised at any time, or an affirmative defense subject to waiver. The case also examined the distinction between standing (personal injury sufficient for justiciability) and capacity (legal authority to bring suit).
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals distinguished between standing and capacity, explaining that “a plaintiff has standing when it is personally aggrieved, regardless of whether it is acting with legal authority,” while “a party has capacity when it has the legal authority to act, regardless of whether it has a justiciable interest.” Crucially, the court held that lack of capacity to sue “is an affirmative defense, which may be waived … by failure to bring it before the trial court.” Since the capacity defect was apparent on the face of the complaint, Provo City waived this defense by failing to raise it in its answer or early motion to dismiss.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the importance of asserting capacity defenses early when they are apparent from the pleadings. Defendants cannot strategically wait until after adverse rulings to raise such challenges. For plaintiffs, the case provides protection against late-asserted technical defenses, though proper pleading remains essential to avoid capacity issues entirely.
Case Details
Case Name
Faucheaux v. Provo City
Citation
2018 UT App 150
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20160738-CA
Date Decided
August 9, 2018
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A defendant’s failure to timely raise the affirmative defense that plaintiff lacks capacity to sue on behalf of the real party in interest results in waiver of that defense.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including propriety of motion to dismiss and subject matter jurisdiction
Practice Tip
Raise capacity-to-sue defenses early in pleadings when the defect appears on the face of the complaint, as waiting until after remand from appeal will likely result in waiver.
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.