Williamson v. Farrell
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 2024 Utah case, the appeals court found trial court could only decide financial exploitation claims, on which plaintiffs prevailed, vacating other elder abuse rulings and remanding the attorney fees award for reconsideration.

2024 | State Juristiction

Williamson v. Farrell

Keywords elder abuse; exploitation; trial court; simplified; quotation; private right of action; declaratory judgment; financial loss; bad faith
Open Case as PDF

Summary

In a legal case adjudicated in Utah during 2024, the appellate court determined that the trial court's authority was restricted to adjudicating claims of financial exploitation. On these specific claims, the plaintiffs were successful. Consequently, all other judgments related to elder abuse were vacated, and the decision regarding the award of attorney fees was remanded for further review.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In a 2024 Utah case, an appellate court concluded that the lower court had the authority to decide only the claims related to financial exploitation. The plaintiffs were successful in these particular claims. Consequently, the appellate court nullified the lower court's other rulings concerning elder abuse. The determination of attorney fees was returned to the lower court for further consideration.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In a 2024 Utah legal case, the court of appeals determined that the lower court had authority only to decide claims related to financial exploitation. The individuals who filed the lawsuit won these financial exploitation claims. The appeals court also overturned other previous rulings concerning elder abuse and sent the decision about attorney fees back to the lower court for a new review.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In a 2024 case from Utah, a higher court made a ruling. The higher court said the first court could only decide cases where money was unfairly taken from older people. The people who sued won these money cases. The higher court also canceled the first court's other decisions about elder abuse. Finally, the higher court sent back the part about paying for lawyers, so it could be looked at again.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

2024 UT App 111, 557 P.3d 214.

Highlights