Opinion ID: 2639411
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Grant Summary Judgment Was Harmless Error in this Case

Text: ¶ 22 We next consider whether this error was harmless. If the error was harmless, that is, if the error was sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the case, then a reversal is not in order. Price v. Armour, 949 P.2d 1251, 1255 (Utah 1997) (citing State v. Robertson, 932 P.2d 1219, 1227 (Utah 1997)); see also Utah R. Civ. P. 61 ([N]o error or defect in any ruling or order ... by the court ... is ground for granting a new trial or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.). In State v. Germonto, 868 P.2d 50, 57-58 (Utah 1993), a criminal case, the defendant argued that the trial court inappropriately denied a motion to modify an information and allowed the trial to go forward on a technically deficient charging statement. We held that we will look to see whether the error, if any, should have been obvious and whether it was cured procedurally and thereby rendered harmless. Id. at 58. In effect, we are dealing with the same situation in the instant case. ¶ 23 Since AFIE's complaint failed to plead fraud with particularity, the trial court should have granted summary judgment for Harrison and dismissed the case. However, it is unlikely that the trial court's failure to take this action affected the outcome. According to rule 15(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may amend his pleading ... by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. Utah R. Civ. P. 15(a). AFIE indicated in its oral argument that it would have moved to amend its complaint had the complaint been dismissed. Under our rule, the trial court is obligated to freely allow motions to amend. Indeed, some jurisdictions hold that it is an abuse of discretion to deny such a motion. See Caputo v. Pfizer, Inc., 267 F.3d 181, 191 (2d Cir.2001) (holding plaintiff should have been allowed to amend complaint to plead fraud with the particularity required by rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). [5] Therefore, it is unlikely that the trial court's error affected the outcome of this case. ¶ 24 In addition, rule 15(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for amendment of the pleadings to conform to the evidence, furnishes the procedural cure to the trial court's error. It states that [w]hen issues not raised by the pleading are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendments of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgment; but failure so to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. Utah R. Civ. P. 15(b). AFIE presented evidence at trial concerning Harrison's personal participation in fraud. Harrison responded by presenting evidence in her own defense on this issue. Since Harrison knew about the fraud allegations against her and was able to present her own evidence at trial to challenge those allegations, she was not prejudiced by the technical failings of AFIE's pleadings. While AFIE, in fact, made no motion to amend its complaint to conform to the evidence, [t]he failure of the trial court to fully amend the pleadings to this effect is non-prejudicial. Seamons v. Andersen, 122 Utah 497, 502, 252 P.2d 209, 212 (1952). Because the issue was tried, it must be treated as if it were properly raised in the pleadings. ¶ 25 This result is much preferred to the alternative of dismissal, especially where a trial has proceeded to conclusion on the existing pleadings and where the defendant has suffered no prejudice by reason of any deficiency in the pleadings. Gill v. Timm, 720 P.2d 1352, 1353 (Utah 1986). Thus, though the trial court erred in denying Harrison's motion for summary judgment, this error does not require us to overturn the result of the trial. It is not reasonably likely, given the amendment procedure in rule 15(a), that the trial court's error would have affected the outcome of the case. Accordingly, Harrison has suffered no prejudice because of the deficiency of the pleadings. Since the court's error was harmless, we now review Harrison's other claims of error.