Express Recovery Services, Inc. v. Shewell
Court of Appeals of Utah
1ConcurrenceOrme, Judge
19 I coneur in what is said in the lead opinion, but write separately to address two issues Express raises that the lead opinion essentially ignores,1 namely that the trial court erred (1) by "invad[ing] the province of the Legislature" when, pursuant to a policy agreed upon by the district court judges at one court location, the court required Express to file an affidavit setting forth certain facts and details in order to recover both collection costs and attorney fees and (2) by not adopting the policy of the bad check statute and of other jurisdictions allowing recovery of collection…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Woodhaven Apartments v. WashingtonUtah Supreme Court · 1997
- Young Electric Sign Co. v. United Standard West, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1988
- Grant Road Lumber Co. v. WystrachCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1984