Does Utah's elder abuse statute provide a private right of action for all forms of elder abuse? Williamson v. Farrell Explained

In Williamson v. Farrell, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical jurisdictional question regarding Utah’s elder abuse statute and the scope of private rights of action available to victims and their families. The case arose from a complex family dispute involving allegations of elder abuse against Ruth Williamson during her final months in Utah.

Background and Facts

Thomas and Jennifer Williamson brought a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they did not commit elder abuse against Ruth Williamson, Thomas’s mother, during her time in Utah from March to November 2016. The trial court considered five statutory grounds of elder abuse: knowingly inflicting harm, isolation, emotional or psychological abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. Following a three-day bench trial, the court found that plaintiffs committed elder abuse by knowingly harming Ruth but did not commit the other four alleged forms of abuse.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate all five statutory grounds of elder abuse or only those that provide a private right of action. This required the court to interpret Utah Code section 26B-6-213, which grants vulnerable adults who suffer “harm or financial loss as a result of exploitation” a private right of action against perpetrators.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the series-qualifier canon of statutory interpretation to determine that the phrase “as a result of exploitation” modifies both “harm” and “financial loss.” This means the private right of action is limited to instances where the victim suffers harm or financial loss specifically resulting from exploitation—one of three categories of elder abuse that includes personal dignity exploitation, financial exploitation, and sexual exploitation. The court held that no private right of action exists for the “abuse” or “neglect” categories of elder abuse, which are addressed through Adult Protective Services and prosecutorial action rather than private litigation.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly limits the scope of private elder abuse litigation in Utah. Practitioners must carefully analyze whether their client’s claims fall within the narrow exploitation category that provides a private right of action. The court vacated the trial court’s rulings on four of the five elder abuse claims for lack of jurisdiction, leaving only the financial exploitation determination intact. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney fees under Utah’s bad faith statute, as the jurisdictional ruling raised new questions about which party ultimately prevailed.