Can a party avoid the election of remedies doctrine by later amending a prior judgment? Cohen Braffits v. Shae Financial Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a party can circumvent the election of remedies doctrine by obtaining an amended judgment in a prior case and then seeking relief under Rule 60(b) in Cohen Braffits v. Shae Financial.

Background and Facts

Cohen Braffits Estates Development, LLC (CBED) was a New York limited liability company owned by Abraham Kleinman and Zohar Cohen. In 2015, Cohen obtained two loans from Shae Financial Group totaling $1.05 million, purportedly on CBED’s behalf, secured by Utah property. When Kleinman discovered these unauthorized loans, he sued Cohen in New York. In 2017, CBED obtained a monetary judgment against Cohen for over $7 million, including the value of the Shae loans plus interest.

When Shae moved to foreclose on the Utah property, CBED sued Shae in Utah seeking to invalidate the loans. The Utah district court granted summary judgment for Shae, finding that CBED’s claim was barred by the election of remedies doctrine. After this ruling, CBED obtained an amended New York judgment removing the monetary damages against Cohen and filed a Rule 60(b) motion in Utah seeking to vacate the summary judgment.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the election of remedies doctrine barred CBED’s claims against Shae, and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying CBED’s Rule 60(b) motion based on the amended New York judgment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed both rulings. Regarding election of remedies, the court applied the inconsistent theories branch, explaining that CBED’s New York monetary judgment was predicated on CBED owing money to Shae, making it inconsistent to later argue that the loans were invalid. The court rejected CBED’s argument that this created a “cruel dilemma,” noting that CBED could have joined Shae in the New York action or sued contemporaneously in Utah.

On the Rule 60(b) motion, the court found no abuse of discretion. The district court properly considered CBED’s “tactical litigation choices” and the timing of its request to amend the New York judgment—which came five years after filing the amended complaint, four years after the judgment, and only after losing in Utah.

Practice Implications

This decision demonstrates that parties cannot easily escape the consequences of the election of remedies doctrine through post-judgment maneuvering. Courts will scrutinize the timing and motivation behind attempts to modify prior judgments, particularly when done to avoid adverse rulings in related litigation. Practitioners should carefully consider joining all necessary parties in initial litigation rather than pursuing separate actions that may create inconsistent theories of recovery.