## Facts

- In 1965, F.E. and Mae P. Bates conveyed a large tract in Summit County, Utah to Security Title Company as “Trustee.”
- Subdivisions were later created from the tract; Paul Howard Peters acquired property within the subdivisions.
- Pine Meadow Ranch Home Association claimed authority (as trust beneficiary or through the title history) to impose and enforce assessment obligations for roadways and other improvements.
- Recorded instruments included a subdivision plat identifying the association as owner/subdivider and Security as “trustee,” and 1973 CC&Rs requiring lot owners to pay annual assessments, plus interest, costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the association, concluding the assessment covenants applied to Peters’s property; the court of appeals affirmed.
- On certiorari, petitioners’ counsel submitted briefs accusing the court of appeals of intentional fabrication and improper motives without evidentiary support; the court of appeals opinion also contained a factual mistake about which individual signed a plat for certain entities.

## Issues

1. Whether certiorari briefs containing irrelevant, scandalous, and disrespectful accusations against the judiciary should be struck under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(k).
2. Whether the court should reach the certified substantive question (whether a trust beneficiary can impose binding CC&Rs on trust property) after striking the briefs.
3. Whether sanctions, including attorney fees assessed personally against counsel, are appropriate for improper certiorari briefing.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court struck petitioners’ certiorari briefs under Utah R. App. P. 24(k) for including irrelevant and scandalous matters and being disrespectful of the judiciary.
- The court declined to address the certified substantive trust/CC&R question and affirmed the results reached by the court of appeals.
- The court assessed attorney fees as a sanction against petitioners’ counsel personally.
- The court stated that, because it did not review the merits, the court of appeals decisions were limited to their facts and without precedential effect.

## Legal Principles

- Utah R. App. P. 24(k) permits striking briefs that contain irrelevant and scandalous matter.
- Allegations of judicial bad faith, corruption, or evidence fabrication require an evidentiary foundation; disagreement with reasoning or identification of error does not justify baseless attacks on judicial integrity.
- When a reviewing court strikes certiorari briefs for serious briefing misconduct, it may affirm the lower court’s result without reaching the merits.
- Appellate courts may impose sanctions, including attorney-fee awards assessed against counsel, for briefing misconduct attributable to the lawyer.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court resolved the case on briefing misconduct, striking scandalous certiorari briefs, declining to reach the certified trust-and-covenants issue, affirming the lower-court outcomes, and sanctioning counsel with attorney fees while limiting the lower opinions to nonprecedential, fact-bound effect.


Peters v. Pine Meadow Ranch Home Ass'n, 151 P.3d 962 (Utah 2007)