Ockey v. Lehmer

77 Citing cases

  1. Wittingham, LLC v. TNE Ltd. P'ship

    2020 UT 49 (Utah 2020)   Cited 20 times
    Rearticulating and applying the two Ockey factors

    This distinction is important because, among other reasons, "a contract or a deed that is void cannot be ratified or accepted," while "a contract or deed that is voidable may be ratified at the election of the injured party."Ockey v. Lehmer , 2008 UT 37, ¶ 18, 189 P.3d 51.¶2 Two years after the Muir Second Family Limited Partnership (the Muir Partnership or Partnership) was administratively dissolved, Nicholas Muir—the former general partner of the Muir Partnership—obtained a loan from the TNE Limited Partnership (TNE).

  2. WDIS, LLC v. Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Phase II

    2022 UT 17 (Utah 2022)

    But because these authorities do not evince the public policy the Landowners suggest, we affirm the district court's decision. 2008 UT 37, 189 P.3d 51. Background

  3. Howick v. Salt Lake City Corp.

    310 P.3d 1220 (Utah Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 8 times

    ¶ 34 “People are generally free to bind themselves pursuant to any contract, barring such things as illegality of subject matter or legal incapacity.” Ockey v. Lehmer, 2008 UT 37, ¶ 21 n. 12, 189 P.3d 51 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, “an enforceable contract can coexist with a statute that may conflict with its terms so long as the contract does not offend the public policy to which the statute gives voice.

  4. State v. Steele

    2010 UT App. 185 (Utah Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 13 times
    Noting but not resolving argument

    ¶ 18 "The distinction between void and voidable is important, although the terms are not always used precisely." Ockey v. Lehmer, 2008 UT 37, ¶ 18, 189 P.3d 51. "A [legal interest] that is void cannot be ratified or accepted. . . ." Id.

  5. Bank of Am. v. Adamson

    391 P.3d 196 (Utah 2017)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that an appellant who "fails to devote adequate attention to an issue is almost certainly going to fail to meet its burden of persuasion"

    We have previously held that there are three categories of deeds: void, voidable, and valid. If a deed is declared void, it "cannot be ratified or accepted, and anyone can attack its validity in court." Ockey v. Lehmer , 2008 UT 37, ¶ 18, 189 P.3d 51 (citations omitted). A void deed "carries no title on which a bona fide purchaser may rely, whereas a [voidable deed] may be the basis of good title in the hands of a bona fide purchaser who gave value prior to the time the deed was avoided by the grantor."

  6. Timber Lakes Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Cowan

    2019 UT App. 160 (Utah Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    We therefore recite the facts in accordance with the district court's findings." Ockey v. Lehmer , 2008 UT 37, ¶ 3, 189 P.3d 51. See infra notes 5 and 7.

  7. Howick v. Salt Lake City Corp.

    2018 UT 20 (Utah 2018)   Cited 9 times
    Noting an appellate court "will not reverse a ruling of the district court that rests on independent alternative grounds where the appellant challenges only [some] of those grounds" (quotation simplified)

    Howick v. Salt Lake City Corp. , 2013 UT App 218, ¶ 43, 310 P.3d 1220. 2008 UT 37, 189 P.3d 51.Howick , 2013 UT App 218, ¶ 34, 310 P.3d 1220.

  8. Wittingham, LLC v. TNE Ltd. P'ship

    2024 UT 23 (Utah 2024)   Cited 1 times

    . ¶16 First, we noted the "rebuttable presumption that defective contracts are voidable rather than void," id. ¶ 25 (citing Ockey v. Lehmer, 2008 UT 37, 189 P.3d 51), and that this presumption can be rebutted "only where a party has made 'a showing free from doubt that the contract is against public policy,'" id. ¶ 23 (quoting Ockey, 2008 UT 37, ¶ 21). Then, we applied Ockey to assess whether the TNE transaction violated public policy.

  9. Berneau v. Martino

    2009 UT 87 (Utah 2009)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that exceptional circumstances tolled the limitations period for appointment of a personal representative even though the plaintiff filed the original complaint "near the end. of the . . . statute of limitations period"

    The determination of the initial showing is a question of fact. Ockey v. Lehmer, 2008 UT 37, ¶ 34, 189 P.3d 51. "The ultimate determination of whether a case presents exceptional circumstances" is a question of law and turns on a balancing test.