Bodell Constr. Co. v. First Interstate Fin. LLC, 2018 UT App 199 (Oct. 18, 2018)

A jury found that the defendants defrauded the plaintiff by misrepresenting a real estate investment.  On appeal, the defendants argued that they were entitled to a new trial because the court admitted prejudicial testimony regarding the details of a different fraud lawsuit against them. The court refused to consider this argument because the defendants made no contemporaneous objection or other motion regarding the evidence at trial on which the trial court could rule, and therefore failed to preserve the issue for appeal.  The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that defendants failed to establish any error in the district court’s rulings, and failed to show a significant risk that the jury improperly based its punitive damages award on harm allegedly caused to a non-party.