2018 UT App 158

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOYCE LUTZ MORRIS

MARK L. MORRIS AND DIANE MORRIS,

Appellants,

v.

CAROLYN PERKINS, H. CONWEY MORRIS, PAUL MORRIS 

AND JOYCE MORRIS,

Appellees.

Per Curiam Opinion

No. 20170330-CA

Filed August 23, 2018

Second District Court, Ogden Department

The Honorable W. Brent West

No. 123900002

Richard H. Reeve, Attorney for Appellants

Jack C. Helgesen and Erik S. Helgesen, Attorneys

for Appellees

Before JUDGES DAVID N. MORTENSEN, JILL M. POHLMAN, and 

RYAN M. HARRIS.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Mark L. Morris, individually and as personal 

representative of the Estate of Joyce Lutz Morris, appeals the 

district court’s order denying his request for attorney fees.1

¶2 Morris initially argues that the district court erred by 

failing to order the estate to reimburse him for attorney fees 

 

1. Diane Morris was included in the notice of appeal; however, 

all issues raised in this appeal concern only Mark L. Morris.
In re Estate of Morris

20170330-CA 2 2018 UT App 158

incurred in defending the claims brought by his siblings. While 

Morris is correct that Utah Code section 75-3-7192 allows a 

personal representative of an estate to recover from the estate 

all necessary expenses, including attorney fees, incurred 

in defending or prosecuting any matter in good faith, 

Morris never requested such fees from the estate. As a result, 

the district court never ruled on the issue. In his motion

for attorney fees, Morris specifically requested attorney 

fees from his siblings (who initiated the action against 

him), claiming that the estate had insufficient funds to 

reimburse him for the attorney fees he incurred. “[I]n order to 

preserve an issue for appeal the issue must be presented to 

the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an 

opportunity to rule on that issue.” Brookside Mobile Home 

Park, Ltd. v. Peebles, 2002 UT 48, ¶ 14, 48 P.3d 968. For a trial 

court to be afforded an opportunity to correct the error, 

“(1) the issue must be raised in a timely fashion; (2) the 

issue must be specifically raised; and (3) the challenging 

party must introduce supporting evidence or relevant legal 

authority.” Id. (quotation simplified). Issues that are not raised at 

trial are usually deemed waived. Id. Here, Morris never raised 

the question of whether he should be reimbursed for attorney 

fees from the estate because his motion specifically requested 

that his siblings be required to pay his attorney fees. 

Accordingly, Morris did not preserve the issue for appeal. 

Further, he has failed to argue that any exception to the 

 

2. Utah Code section 75-3-719 states: “If any personal 

representative or person nominated as personal representative 

defends or prosecutes any proceeding in good faith, whether 

successful or not, the personal representative is entitled to 

receive from the estate all necessary expenses and 

disbursements, including reasonable attorney fees incurred.”

Utah Code Ann. § 75-3-719 (LexisNexis Supp. 2017).
In re Estate of Morris

20170330-CA 3 2018 UT App 158

preservation requirement, such as plain error, applies.3 We, 

therefore, do not address the issue.

¶3 Morris next argues that the district court erred in failing 

to order that his siblings be required to reimburse him for 

attorney fees incurred in defending himself against the claims 

asserted by the siblings. Morris concedes on appeal that Utah 

Code section 75-3-719 is limited in its plain language to 

reimbursement of attorney fees from the estate, not others. 

However, Morris requests that we look beyond the plain 

language of the statute to its supposed purpose, which Morris 

opines is to “protect personal representatives from the burden of 

paying, from their own pocket, for the prosecution of claims or 

the defense against claims on behalf of the decedent’s estate.” 

“‘[W]here the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, we 

do not look beyond the language’s plain meaning to divine 

legislative intent.’” State v. Tryba, 2000 UT App 230, ¶ 13, 8 P.3d 

274 (quoting Horton v. Royal Order of the Sun, 821 P.2d 1167, 1168 

(Utah 1991)). “Only when we find ambiguity in the statute’s 

plain language need we seek guidance from the legislative 

history and relevant policy considerations.” Nelson v. Salt Lake 

County, 905 P.2d 872, 875 (Utah 1995) (quotation simplified). 

Because the language of Utah Code section 75-3-719, by Morris’s 

own admission, is not ambiguous, there is no need for this court 

to look beyond the plain language of the statute to determine the 

legislature’s intent. Further, Morris does not allege that a literal 

reading of the statute creates an “absurd, unreasonable, or 

inoperable result.” State v. Jeffries, 2009 UT 57, ¶ 8, 217 P.3d 265 

(“Where a statute’s plain language creates an absurd, 

 

3. In their brief, the siblings acknowledge that Morris is entitled 

to reimbursement of attorney fees from the estate and note that 

Morris, as personal representative of the estate, may pay the fees 

without the express order of the district court.
In re Estate of Morris

20170330-CA 4 2018 UT App 158

unreasonable, or inoperable result, we assume the legislature did 

not intend that result. To avoid an absurd result, we endeavor to 

discover the underlying legislative intent and interpret the 

statute accordingly.”). Accordingly, the district court correctly 

concluded that Utah Code section 75-3-719 did not allow for the 

imposition of an attorney fees award against the siblings.

¶4 Affirmed.