What burden must a party meet when asserting a statute of frauds defense? Fritsche v. Deer Valley Ridge Explained

In Fritsche v. Deer Valley Ridge, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the evidentiary requirements for parties asserting statute of frauds defenses, emphasizing that conclusory allegations without supporting evidence will not suffice.

Background and Facts

The Trust owned a condominium and sued the Association for damages from a misplaced sprinkler. The parties reached a settlement agreement through email exchanges that included a “Management Provision” barring the Trust’s trustees from serving on the management committee. When the Association moved to enforce the settlement, the Trust argued the Management Provision was unenforceable under the statute of frauds because their attorney lacked written authorization to agree to surrender property rights.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the Trust met its burden of proof for its statute of frauds defense. The Trust claimed their counsel was never given written authority to enter into the Management Provision, but provided no evidence supporting this assertion during the initial enforcement proceedings.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the statute of frauds is an affirmative defense, placing the burden of proof on the party asserting it. This burden includes both the burden of production (introducing sufficient evidence) and the burden of persuasion (convincing the fact-finder). The Trust failed to meet either burden, offering only conclusory statements without supporting evidence. The court noted that “conclusory statements are not enough to satisfy a party’s burden of proof.” The Trust later attempted to introduce evidence through a Rule 60(b) motion, but the district court properly denied relief because the Trust had made a deliberate choice to withhold evidence during the initial proceedings.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah practitioners cannot rely on bare allegations when asserting affirmative defenses. When claiming lack of authority under the statute of frauds, parties must present actual evidence—such as communications, engagement letters, or testimony—demonstrating the scope of counsel’s authorization. The ruling also highlights that Rule 60(b) relief is not available to cure strategic decisions made during initial litigation, particularly when the party had access to relevant evidence but chose not to present it.