Can a sworn declaration defeat summary judgment when opposing counsel claims it contradicts deposition testimony? Hansen & Mecham v. Hansen Explained

In Hansen & Mecham Investments LLC v. Brian Hansen, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant’s sworn declaration could create a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment, even when opposing counsel claimed it contradicted the defendant’s deposition testimony.

Background and Facts

Hansen provided a conditional guaranty for a $400,000 loan made by the Horsley parties to Teresa Collo. The guaranty contained a condition precedent requiring Hansen to close a $100 million financing transaction with i-Finance before his guarantee obligation would become effective. When neither Collo nor Hansen repaid the loan, investors who had funded the Horsleys sued Hansen for breach of guaranty.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Hansen’s sworn declaration stating that “the i-Finance loan was never approved” created a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the condition precedent was satisfied. The investors argued Hansen’s declaration contradicted his deposition testimony under the Webster v. Sill doctrine, which prevents parties from creating factual disputes through contradictory affidavits.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment ruling. The court found that the investors failed to establish any actual contradiction between Hansen’s declaration and his deposition testimony. Critically, only eight pages of Hansen’s deposition were in the record, and those pages contained no discussion of the i-Finance transaction. The court emphasized that Webster v. Sill requires a clear demonstration that the deponent took a “clear position” that was later contradicted—a showing the investors could not make from the limited record.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that parties cannot cure record deficiencies on appeal by including materials not presented to the trial court. When claiming deposition testimony contradicts a later affidavit, practitioners must ensure the relevant portions of the deposition are part of the trial court record. The decision also demonstrates that courts cannot grant summary judgment on causes of action not requested in the motion—here, the trial court improperly ruled on additional claims that were not part of the investors’ motion.