Alarm Protection Technology, LLC v. Bradburn, 2021 UT 25 (July 1, 2021) and Alarm Protection Technology LLC v. Crandall, 2021 UT 26 (July 1, 2021)
In these two related cases, former sales representatives of Alarm Protection Technology LLC appealed the denial of several motions challenging various aspects of APT’s execution of their claims against APT for unpaid commissions and extinguishing those claims before they could be adjudicated. In both cases, the former sales representatives had signed confessions of judgment when they received advances against future compensation. After leaving APT, both sued for unpaid commissions. APT then filed the confessions of judgment and obtained judgments against each former sales representative. APT then moved for writs of execution, identifying the claims against it as the property it wanted to seize. The claims were sold at auction, at which APT purchased the
claims for credit bids of less than the judgments owed. It then substituted itself as the plaintiffs and dismissed each of the suits against it. In both appeals, the court affirmed the district court’s denials of the sales representatives’ motions for return of excess proceeds as both procedurally barred and substantively meritless. And, in Crandall, the court additionally affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment and quash the writ of execution as procedurally foreclosed. Justice Petersen issued a concurring opinion raising the question of whether the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure should permit judgment creditors to execute against claims in which they are defendants and then extinguish those claims, noting that the rules currently do allow for this practice. Justices Durrant and Himonas joined in the concurrence. Justice Lee, authoring the majority opinion, commended Justice Peterson for her “careful consideration and analysis of an important issue” but declined to express views on the matter in advance, instead deferring to the rule amendment process. He was joined by Justice Pearce.