Dadgari v. Bakhti (AMENDED)

Dadgari v. Bakhti (AMENDED)

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Bahman Dadgari,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

Niloofar Bakhti,

Defendant and Appellee.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION1

(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020682-CA
 

F I L E D

(June 17, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 200A

 

-----

Third District, Sandy Department

The Honorable Michael K. Burton

Attorneys: Scott B. Mitchell, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

J. Thomas Bowen, Midvale, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Davis, Jackson, and Thorne.

    In March 2002, Dadgari petitioned the district court for a declaration that Bakhti's non-judicial foreclosure action was barred by the six-year statute of limitations set forth in Utah Code Annotated section 78-12-23(2) (1996). Bakhti petitioned the district court for summary judgment, which the district court granted. Dadgari now appeals. We affirm.

    In Rice v. Granite School District, 23 Utah 2d 22, 456 P.2d 159 (Utah 1969), the Utah Supreme Court held that statute of limitations defenses may be barred under the doctrines of waiver or estoppel. See id. at 162. Explaining this principle, the court noted that "[t]he question of whether negotiations for the compromise of a claim or debt will give rise to an estoppel against pleading the statute of limitations depends upon the character of the negotiations and the circumstances surrounding the parties." Id. at 163. Here, Dadgari entered into a settlement agreement in December 1997 with Bakhti's parents and brother, all of whom had had an ownership interest in the property during the period of time giving rise to the claims against Dadgari. As part of that settlement, the parties agreed that "[t]he claims . . . regarding the late rent, late payments to the bank, [and] late taxes . . . should remain and will be amicably rectified after" completion of the prior portions of the agreement. (Emphasis added.) Though Bakhti was not a party to that settlement, the uncontested argument presented below was that she had withheld prosecution of her non-judicial foreclosure action against Dadgari out of reliance on the settlement agreement that had been entered into by Dadgari with her parents and brother. Given that the settlement agreement explicitly tolled the very claims that were the subject of Bakhti's non-judicial foreclosure action, we conclude that Bakhti's reliance on this agreement in delaying pursuit of her non-judicial relief was reasonable.(2) Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in granting Bakhti's motion for summary judgment.

    Affirmed.

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. This Amended Memorandum Decision replaces the Memorandum Decision in Case No. 20020682-CA issued on April 8, 2004.

2. Dadgari also argues that Bakhti's status as a non-party to the settlement agreement should prevent her from making an estoppel argument here. Dadgari has not presented us with any legal authority, Utah or otherwise, supporting his assertion that a person may only rely on a settlement agreement if the person was actually a party to that agreement. Because this argument is improperly briefed, we decline to address its merits. See Smith v. Smith, 1999 UT App 370,¶¶8-11, 995 P.2d 14.