Opinion
Case No. 20030444-CA.
Filed May 27, 2004. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Fourth District, Provo Department, The Honorable Gary D. Stott.
Kenneth B. Grimes Jr., Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Allen K. Young and John A. Penrod, Provo, for Appellee.
Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Greenwood.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Greg Boyer appeals a trial court order awarding judgment in favor of Wing Enterprises, Inc. (Wing) and dismissing Boyer's complaint with prejudice. We affirm.
Boyer argues that the trial court erred by ruling that the claims contained in his complaint were barred by equitable estoppel.
Equitable estoppel requires proof of three elements: (i) a statement, admission, act, or failure to act by one party inconsistent with a claim later asserted; (ii) reasonable action or inaction by the other party taken or not taken on the basis of the first party's statement, admission, act, or failure to act; and (iii) injury to the second party that would result from allowing the first party to contradict or repudiate such statement, admission, act, or failure to act.
Nunley v. Westates Casing Servs., Inc., 1999 UT 100, ¶ 34, 989 P.2d 1077 (quotations and citation omitted).
Boyer asserts that the trial court "did not separately apply each of these elements to the facts" of this case. However, the trial court's ruling reveals that, although it did not enumerate each element or use the exact language from Nunley for each element, it did apply each of these elements to the facts of this case. Paragraph 14 of the trial court's ruling states:
The [c]ourt finds that based on [Boyer]'s failure to protest his termination and his acceptance of the severance offer, [Wing] reasonably paid [Boyer] all payments as agreed, and in all ways performed its part of the agreement. [Wing] reasonably believed that [Boyer] accepted the severance package offered as fair closure to the employment relationship, and acted accordingly. To allow [Boyer] to assert that [Wing] is in breach of contract for not terminating [Boyer] in strict compliance with its written policy after accepting all benefits under the severance agreement would cause injury to [Wing], and would be inequitable.
Boyer does not challenge most of these findings, and for those that he does challenge, he fails to marshal the evidence in support of them. See Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9) ("A party challenging a fact finding must first marshal all record evidence that supports the challenged finding."); West Valley City v. Majestic Inv. Co., 818 P.2d 1311, 1315 (Utah Ct.App. 1991) (explaining marshaling burden in detail). Accordingly, we assume that all of these findings are valid and supported by evidence in the record. See Tanner v. Carter, 2001 UT 18, ¶ 17, 20 P.3d 332 ("Where the appellant fails to so marshal the evidence, we need not consider the challenge to the sufficiency of the findings."); Heber City Corp. v. Simpson, 942 P.2d 307, 312 (Utah 1997) ("When a party fails to challenge a factual finding and marshal the evidence in support of that finding, we assume that the record supports the finding. . . ." (first alteration in original) (quotations and citations omitted)). Because these findings address and satisfy each of the elements required to establish equitable estoppel, we conclude that the trial court did not err by ruling that the claims contained in Boyer's complaint were barred by equitable estoppel.
Because this issue is dispositive of Boyer's appeal, we do not address his other arguments. See, e.g., State v. Heaton, 958 P.2d 911, 919 (Utah 1998) (stating that when one issue is dispositive of an appeal, we need not address other arguments); Beehive Brick Co. v. Robinson Brick Co., 780 P.2d 827, 833 (Utah Ct.App. 1989) ("It is an established principle in both civil and criminal cases that this court need not analyze and address in writing each and every argument, issue, or claim raised and properly before us on appeal. Rather, the nature and extent of an opinion rendered by this court is largely discretionary with this court." (quotations and citations omitted)).
WE CONCUR: Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge, Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge.