Utah Court of Appeals

Can attorneys file a lis pendens in Utah for out-of-state legal proceedings? Winters v. Schulman Explained

1999 UT App 119
No. 980242-CA
April 15, 1999
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part

Summary

David Winters sued Joanne Schulman and Allison Abizaid after Schulman filed a lis pendens on Winters’s Utah property in connection with a California divorce enforcement action. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Schulman on all claims including wrongful lien, negligence, and abuse of process.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about lis pendens filings in Winters v. Schulman, clarifying when these notices may be filed in Utah for actions pending in other states and establishing strict requirements for their validity.

Background and Facts

David Winters and Allison Abizaid divorced in California in 1989. Winters later purchased Utah property, and Abizaid quit-claimed her interest to him in 1992. In 1995, Abizaid retained California attorney Joanne Schulman to enforce the divorce decree. Schulman filed a lis pendens on Winters’s Utah property stating that a divorce action was pending in California. However, no action was actually pending at the time—the California enforcement action wasn’t filed until five months later. Winters sued in Utah seeking removal of the lis pendens and damages for wrongful lien, negligence, and abuse of process.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether Winters’s wrongful lien claim was moot, (2) whether a lis pendens may be filed in Utah for out-of-state proceedings, and (3) whether Schulman’s lis pendens met statutory requirements under Utah Code section 78-40-2.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that lis pendens may be filed in Utah for out-of-state actions because this provides greater protection to prospective purchasers by giving notice of all actions that may affect Utah property. However, the court found Schulman’s lis pendens invalid for two reasons: (1) no action was pending when the lis pendens was filed, and (2) the California divorce action did not affect title to or possession of the Utah property, which was purchased after the divorce was finalized. The court noted that Utah law prohibits lis pendens filings for actions seeking only money judgments.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for practitioners dealing with multi-state property disputes. While Utah allows lis pendens for out-of-state actions, strict compliance with statutory requirements remains essential. The court’s analysis of wrongful lien statutes also demonstrates the potential liability attorneys face when filing improper liens, particularly when they should have known the filing was groundless under applicable law.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Winters v. Schulman

Citation

1999 UT App 119

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 980242-CA

Date Decided

April 15, 1999

Outcome

Affirmed in part and Reversed in part

Holding

A lis pendens may be filed in Utah for out-of-state actions, but the lis pendens in this case was invalid because no action was pending when filed and the action did not affect title to or possession of Utah property.

Standard of Review

Correctness for questions of law and summary judgment determinations

Practice Tip

Before filing a lis pendens in Utah for out-of-state actions, ensure there is an actual pending action at the time of filing and that the action affects title to or possession of Utah property.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Bradley v. Payson City

    January 11, 2001

    Municipal land use decisions that are legislative in nature must be reviewed under the reasonably debatable standard, not the substantial evidence standard, and a city council’s denial of a rezoning request based on public concerns about incompatible land uses, traffic, and adherence to the general plan is not arbitrary and capricious when reasonably debatable.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Land Use and Zoning
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    In re D.A.T.

    July 1, 2021

    The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in waiving the alibi statute’s witness disclosure requirements where the defendant received adequate notice through police reports disclosed in discovery.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Evidence and Admissibility
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    Read More
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.