Opinion ID: 2716846
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: tortious interference with

Text: PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS ¶ 44 Ms. Keith argues that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of MRD on her claim of intentional interference with prospective economic relations. She argues that MRD committed this tort when it asserted, immediately following the settlement in 2005 and for some time thereafter, that it was entitled to all of the ERUs granted in the preliminary development plan, and that they were valuable, vested rights that MRD had retained in its property only. Ms. Keith argues that MRD ―actively sought to prevent Ms. Keith from moving forward with the entitlement of her property . . . without any legitimate need to do so‖ in order to ―improperly damage Ms. Keith.‖ ¶ 45 In order to recover damages for intentional interference with prospective economic relations, ―the plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff‘s existing or potential economic relations, (2) for an improper purpose or by improper means, (3) causing injury to the plaintiff.‖58 ¶ 46 To show an improper purpose, ―the plaintiff must prove more than a defendant‘s motivation of ill will toward the plaintiff; [r]ather, the plaintiff must show that the defendant‘s predominant purpose was to injure the plaintiff.‖59 When a party is ―reasonably acting to protect a legitimate economic interest of its 58 Leigh Furniture & Carpet Co. v. Isom, 657 P.2d 293, 304 (Utah 1982). We note that a challenge to the ―improper purpose‖ element of Utah‘s intentional interference with prospective economic relations cause of action has been fully briefed and is currently under advisement before this court. Eldridge v. Johndrow, No. 20130263 (Utah filed Oct. 17, 2013). We do not address the future viability of the improper purpose element today because it was not raised or briefed by the parties in this case. Moreover, because we affirm the grant of summary judgment on this issue, the question presented in Eldridge would not change the outcome of this case one way or the other. 59 Ferguson v. Williams & Hunt, Inc., 2009 UT 49, ¶ 35, 221 P.3d 205 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 23 KEITH v. MOUNTAIN RESORTS Opinion of the Court own,‖ this is not an improper purpose.60 ―Improper means are present where the means used to interfere with a party‘s economic relations are contrary to law, such as violations of statutes, regulations, or recognized common law rules. Improper means include violence, threats or other intimidation, deceit or misrepresentation, bribery, unfounded litigation, defamation, or disparaging falsehood.‖61 ¶ 47 MRD stated that it took the actions it did because it believed, accurately, as it turns out, that because Ms. Keith‘s property did not meet the 160-acre requirement for a development in the Mountain Zone, it did not qualify for more than the standard amount of ERUs (in this case, two lots of record) without a variance. MRD further claimed that it mistakenly believed that it held all approvals and entitlements under the 2002 approval. Even if MRD harbored ill will towards Ms. Keith, MRD‘s statements were made in pursuit of its own economic interest. Thus, its statements were not made for the predominant purpose of injuring Ms. Keith.62 Accordingly, Ms. Keith failed as a matter of law to establish improper purpose or improper means under Leigh Furniture and her claim of intentional interference with prospective economic relations was properly dismissed on summary judgment.