You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Snow v. Chartway Federal Credit Union

Citations: 2013 UT App 175; 306 P.3d 868; 739 Utah Adv. Rep. 68; 2013 Utah App. LEXIS 180; 2013 WL 3753512Docket: 20120215-CA

Court: Court of Appeals of Utah; July 18, 2013; Utah; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves an appeal by Scott Snow against Chartway Federal Credit Union concerning the dismissal of his claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Snow had initially obtained a construction loan from Tooele Federal Credit Union, later acquired by Chartway, and faced foreclosure after defaulting on the loan terms. Snow alleged that Chartway failed to honor promises related to loan assumption and short sale negotiations. The Utah Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's dismissal of Snow's claims. The court applied a correctness standard and found no evidence of a written modification to the Note to support Snow's claims, citing the statute of frauds requirements. The court also determined that Chartway's enforcement of its contractual rights, including foreclosure, was lawful and did not meet the legal standards for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Consequently, the district court's ruling was affirmed, maintaining Chartway's dismissal motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

Legal Issues Addressed

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Application: The court found that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot impose obligations inconsistent with express terms in a contract, such as the Note which explicitly prohibited assignment without approval.

Reasoning: The court noted that while there exists an implied covenant of good faith in contracts, it cannot impose obligations inconsistent with express terms.

Lawful Assertion of Contractual Rights

Application: The court ruled that Chartway's actions in enforcing the Note's terms were lawful and privileged, negating liability for emotional distress caused by these actions.

Reasoning: The court found that Chartway's actions, including not allowing another buyer to assume the loan, delaying a short sale, and foreclosing on Snow's home, were within the rights outlined in their contractual agreement.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Application: The court dismissed Snow's claim due to the absence of allegations that Chartway's conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing severe emotional distress.

Reasoning: Snow's claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress was dismissed by the district court due to the absence of allegations that supported the necessary legal standards.

Statute of Frauds in Real Property Agreements

Application: The court held that Snow's claim was deficient due to lack of a written modification of the Note, as required under the statute of frauds for real property agreements.

Reasoning: The court agrees with Chartway, finding that Snow has failed to identify any written document that modifies the Note or mandates negotiation of new terms or acceptance of a loan assumption or short sale.