Utah Supreme Court
Can a title company's routine services create fiduciary duties? Gildea v. Guardian Title Company of Utah Explained
Summary
Bruce and Shirlynn Gildea sued Guardian Title Company, attorneys, and John Sittner for alleged conspiracy to defraud and breach of fiduciary duty after Sittner filed a bad faith foreclosure action on a judgment lien that had been waived in Gildea’s bankruptcy. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Gildea v. Guardian Title Company of Utah, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a title company performing routine services establishes an agency relationship creating fiduciary duties and whether filing a bad faith lawsuit can support a conspiracy to defraud claim.
Background and Facts
John Sittner obtained a judgment against Bruce Gildea, then filed as an unsecured creditor in Gildea’s bankruptcy and received $4,032.99 as his distribution. Despite this payment, Sittner later sued to foreclose on the judgment lien against Gildea’s property. Guardian Title Company had prepared a title report for the property and excluded Sittner’s judgment lien from its title insurance commitment. The state court ultimately ruled that Sittner’s foreclosure action was filed in bad faith and awarded attorney fees to the Gildeas.
Key Legal Issues
The Gildeas then sued Guardian Title, claiming breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy to defraud, and negligent misrepresentation. They argued that Guardian was their agent because they paid $200 for title services, creating fiduciary duties that Guardian allegedly breached by sharing confidential information.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment dismissing all claims. Regarding the fiduciary duty claim, the court held that Guardian’s agreement to prepare a title report and deed did not establish an agency relationship. The Gildeas provided no evidence that Guardian agreed to “act on their behalf and subject to their control.” Additionally, the court found no evidence that Guardian breached any duties, as the only testimony showed that the attorney did not access Guardian’s file.
On the conspiracy to defraud claim, the court emphasized that “a frivolous claim is not a form of fraud.” The proper remedies for bad faith litigation include Rule 11 sanctions, wrongful civil proceedings claims, or Utah Code § 78-27-56 attorney fee awards—which the Gildeas had already received.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies the limited scope of title company relationships and emphasizes using appropriate procedural remedies for frivolous litigation. The court also awarded sanctions against the Gildeas for their frivolous appeal against Guardian Title, demonstrating consequences for pursuing meritless claims on appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
Gildea v. Guardian Title Company of Utah
Citation
1998 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 970500
Date Decided
November 24, 1998
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A title company preparing a title report and deed does not establish an agency relationship creating fiduciary duties, and filing a bad faith lawsuit cannot form the basis of a conspiracy to defraud action.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law on summary judgment
Practice Tip
When title companies provide routine services like title reports and deed preparation, ensure the scope of the relationship is clearly defined to avoid later disputes over fiduciary duties.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.