What happens when you accept benefits from a court order you plan to appeal? Boyle v. Baum Explained

Background and Facts

The Boyles contracted to purchase a home that Joshua Baum was building through his company Baumhaus LLC. When construction delays occurred and Baum demanded a higher purchase price, the Boyles refused and Baum attempted to cancel the contract. The Boyles sued for specific performance, and the district court granted their summary judgment motion, ordering Baum to perform the contract within thirty days. Baum complied by conveying the property and accepting full payment in March 2024, but later appealed the summary judgment order in February 2025.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Baum’s appeal was moot after he accepted the benefits of the court’s order without reservation of rights or protest. The Boyles moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Baum’s voluntary compliance with the interlocutory order extinguished any live controversy.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the acceptance-of-benefits doctrine established in Trees v. Lewis and Black v. Alpha Financial Corp. The court rejected Baum’s argument that different rules should apply to interlocutory orders, noting he had multiple procedural tools available: filing for a stay under the court’s inherent powers, seeking permission to appeal under Rule 5(a), requesting a stay under Rule 62(c), or at minimum transferring the property under protest with reservation of rights. The court emphasized that Baum’s acceptance of payment and conveyance without protest created an unfair “shift in the burden of risk” to the Boyles, who would have difficulty recovering their money if the appeal succeeded.

Practice Implications

This decision extends mootness doctrine to interlocutory orders requiring property transfers. Practitioners must act quickly when facing such orders by immediately seeking stays through available procedural mechanisms or, at minimum, complying under protest with express reservation of rights. The ruling demonstrates that Utah courts will strictly apply mootness principles regardless of whether the underlying order was interlocutory or final, emphasizing the critical importance of preserving appellate jurisdiction through proper procedural safeguards.