IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐

Capital One Bank, N.A.,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

James D. Wall,

Defendant and Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PER CURIAM DECISION

Case No. 20120121‐CA

F I L E D

(June 7, 2012)

   2012 UT App 167

‐‐‐‐‐

Second District, Farmington Department, 110701332

The Honorable Michael G. Allphin

Attorneys: James D. Wall, Kaysville, Appellant Pro Se

Grady R. McNett, Draper, for Appellee

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges Davis, Thorne, and Roth.

¶1 James D. Wall appeals the district court’s order granting Capital One Bank,

N.A.’s motion for summary judgment.  Wall asserts that Capital One’s complaint

should have been dismissed because it was not licensed to do business in the State of

Utah.  This matter is before the court on it’s own motion for summary disposition on the

basis that the grounds for review are so insubstantial as not to merit further

proceedings and consideration by the court.  Wall did not file a response to the motion.

¶2 On April 14, 2011, Wall filed a motion to dismiss Capital One’s complaint

“because the plaintiff has no legal standing in this state to do business and therefore has

no standing to bring suits” in any Utah court.  Capital One filed a response to the

motion.  However, neither Wall nor Capital One ever filed a request to submit the

motion for decision pursuant to rule 7(d) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.  A few
20120121‐CA 2

months later, Capital One filed a motion for summary judgment, which was unopposed

by Wall.  Capital One filed a notice to submit its motion for decision, and the motion

was granted by the district court.

¶3 Rule 7 expressly states that “[i]f no party files a request, the motion will not be

submitted for decision.”  Utah R. Civ. P. 7(d).  The Utah Supreme Court has previously

determined that if no party files a notice to submit a motion for decision, a party’s

motion and the arguments asserted therein are not “properly before the district court.”

See Golding v. Ashley Cent. Irrigation Co., 902 P.2d 142, 148 (Utah 1995) (interpreting same

language when the rule was included in the Utah Rules of Judicial Administration).

Accordingly, the supreme court concluded that a district court does not err by refusing

to address a motion that was never submitted for decision by a proper notice.  See id.

Therefore, because Wall never filed a request to submit his motion for decision, the

district court did not err in refusing to consider the argument.  Furthermore, because

the issue was not properly raised in the district court, it is not properly preserved for

appellate review.  See State v. Briggs, 2006 UT App 448, ¶ 4, 147 P.3d 969 (stating that

claimed errors must be brought to the attention of the district court to give the court an

opportunity to correct any error); Holman v. Callister, Duncan & Nebeker, 905 P.2d 895,

899 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (stating that a litigant’s failure to raise an issue with the district

court fails to preserve the claim for appeal).

¶4 Accordingly, because Wall failed to preserve the issue of standing for appellate

review and he has failed to raise any other substantial issues for review, we affirm.

____________________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

____________________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

____________________________________

Stephen L. Roth, Judge