Opinion ID: 2640013
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the decision to allow the village to amend its answer

Text: ¶8 The Savages argue that the district court abused its discretion in granting the Village's motion to amend its answer because the Village requested the amendment late in the litigation, it should have been aware of the statute when the complaint was filed, and it offered no adequate justification for the untimely nature of its request. ¶9 The district court's decision to allow amendment of the pleadings is reviewed for abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice to the complaining party. Norman v. Arnold, 2002 UT 81, ¶ 38, 57 P.3d 997. Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) states that leave to amend pleadings shall be freely given by the court when justice so requires. Utah R. Civ. P. 15(a). The court's ultimate goal is to have the real controversy between the parties presented, their rights determined, and the cause decided, Johnson v. Brinkerhoff, 57 P.2d 1132, 1136 (Utah 1936), so the court should allow amendments freely where justice requires, and especially is this true before trial. Gillman V. Hansen, 486 P.2d 1045-46 (Utah 1971) (internal quotations omitted). Another prime consideration is whether the nonmoving party had adequate opportunity to meet the newly raised matter. Id. Lewis v. Moultree, 627 P.2d 94, 98 (Utah 1981). Further, in deciding whether to grant a motion to amend, Utah courts should consider the following factors: (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) the justification for delay; and (3) any resulting prejudice to the responding party. Swift Stop, Inc. v. Wight, 845 P.2d 250, 253 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). ¶10 Here, the Village filed its motion four weeks before the trial date, giving the Savages a month to research and address the newly raised statute. The Savages did in fact respond to the arguments based on section 78-12-25.1, raising numerous points in opposition to its application. Although the Village moved to amend eleven months after the deadline to amend had passed, three months after the case was certified for trial, and four weeks before trial, thus pressing the outer limits of timeliness, we conclude that no prejudice to appellants is apparent, and the district court acted within its broad discretion when it granted the Village's motion to amend its answer to include the Village's argument regarding section 78-12-25.1(5).