Utah Court of Appeals
Can borrowers prevent foreclosure by filing multiple relief applications? Brimhall v. Ditech Financial Explained
Summary
The Brimhalls defaulted on their mortgage and applied for foreclosure relief through Ditech Financial, but Ditech claimed their application was incomplete and proceeded with a trustee’s sale. The Brimhalls sued, asserting they had timely submitted complete applications and that the sale violated Utah’s statutory notice requirements for foreclosure relief proceedings.
Analysis
In Brimhall v. Ditech Financial, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether borrowers can indefinitely delay foreclosure by submitting serial applications for loss mitigation relief. The case highlights critical issues about factual disputes in summary judgment and the interpretation of Utah’s foreclosure relief statutes.
Background and Facts
After the Brimhalls defaulted on their mortgage, they applied for foreclosure relief through their servicer, Ditech Financial. Ditech claimed the application was incomplete and missing required documents, setting an April 20 deadline for submission. When Ditech proceeded with a trustee’s sale in August 2016, the Brimhalls sued, asserting they had timely submitted all required documents and that Ditech’s continued communications about additional applications should have prevented the sale.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two main issues: (1) whether genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the completeness of the foreclosure relief application, and (2) whether Utah Code section 57-1-24.3 allows borrowers to retrigger statutory notice requirements by submitting multiple applications for foreclosure relief.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that the borrowers’ sworn statements created genuine factual disputes about whether they had timely submitted complete applications. The court emphasized that trial courts must consider all properly cited evidence, even if not physically attached to opposition briefs. Regarding serial applications, the court concluded that Utah law does not allow borrowers to indefinitely delay foreclosure through successive applications after proper denial of the first application.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that Utah’s foreclosure relief statutes prevent dual tracking only for the first properly submitted application. Once a servicer provides written notice of denial, subsequent applications do not retrigger the prohibition on scheduling trustee’s sales. However, practitioners should ensure all supporting evidence is properly incorporated by reference in summary judgment proceedings, as courts cannot ignore relevant sworn testimony merely because it was not physically attached to opposition briefs.
Case Details
Case Name
Brimhall v. Ditech Financial
Citation
2021 UT App 34
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20180544-CA
Date Decided
April 1, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Holding
A genuine dispute of material fact exists when borrowers present sworn statements asserting they timely submitted complete foreclosure relief applications while the servicer claims they did not, precluding summary judgment on whether the servicer complied with statutory notice requirements.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law and statutory interpretation; abuse of discretion for indispensable party determinations; correctness for summary judgment rulings
Practice Tip
When opposing summary judgment in foreclosure cases, ensure all affidavits and declarations are properly cited and incorporated by reference in opposition briefs, even if not physically attached.
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.