Boyle v. Baumhaus

2026 UT App 55

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

ZANE BOYLE AND SHANA BOYLE,
Appellees,
v.
JOSHUA LARRY BAUM AND BAUMHAUS LLC,
Appellants.

Opinion
No. 20250164-CA
Filed April 9, 2026

Fourth District Court, Spanish Fork Department
The Honorable Jared Eldridge
No. 210300151

Dusten L. Heugly, Attorney for Appellants
Brady T. Gibbs, Attorney for Appellees

JUDGE JOHN D. LUTHY authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER and
DAVID N. MORTENSEN concurred.

LUTHY, Judge:

¶1 Zane and Shana Boyle entered a contract to purchase a
home that Joshua Larry Baum and his company, Baumhaus LLC,
were in the process of building. 1 Disputes arose under the
contract, and litigation ensued. Eventually, in response to the
Boyles’ motion for summary judgment, the district court ordered
specific performance of the contract. The parties complied by
closing on the sale—with Baum receiving payment and the Boyles

1. For convenience, we refer to Joshua Larry Baum and Baumhaus
LLC interchangeably as “Baum.” We generally refer to the Boyles
collectively. When we refer to only one of them, we use their first
names, with no disrespect intended by the apparent informality.
Boyle v. Baum

taking ownership and possession of the home—all before a final
judgment was entered. After a final judgment was entered, Baum
appealed, challenging the summary judgment ruling.

¶2 The Boyles have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the
basis that the appeal is moot. Their motion is well taken. We
conclude that because Baum accepted the Boyles’ money and
conveyed the home subject to no reservation of rights, protest, or
attempt to preserve the status quo pending appeal, the appeal is
moot. We therefore lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

¶3 In early 2021, the Boyles contacted Baum about purchasing
a single-family residence Baum was in the process of building (the
Property). Shortly thereafter, the Boyles and Baum entered into a
real estate purchase contract (REPC) for the Property.

¶4 After the settlement deadline identified in the REPC
passed without construction being completed, the parties agreed
to a later settlement deadline. The home was still not completed
by the later date, and after that new closing date passed, Baum
told the Boyles they were in breach and would need to agree to a
higher purchase price or he would cancel the REPC. The Boyles
refused to pay more, and Baum sent them a letter purporting to
cancel the REPC.

¶5 The Boyles sued Baum, and Baum counterclaimed. Both
sides alleged breach of contract, among other things. The Boyles
then moved for summary judgment on Baum’s claims, and the
district court granted their motion, issuing an order on February
6, 2024, which required specific performance of the REPC within
thirty days. Due to the need to still resolve other, outstanding
issues in the litigation—including motions for attorney fees and
for damages incidental to specific performance—the court did not

20250164-CA 2 2026 UT App 55
Boyle v. Baum

enter a judgment at that time. 2 It eventually entered a judgment
on January 15, 2025, in favor of the Boyles, including for their
attorney fees and costs.

¶6 Baum filed his notice of appeal on February 13, 2025.
Thereafter, the Boyles filed a suggestion of mootness and motion
to dismiss the appeal.

¶7 In support of their suggestion of mootness and motion to
dismiss, the Boyles submitted a declaration from Zane, who
declared that after the court issued its order granting the Boyles’
summary judgment motion, the Boyles and Baum “began
communicating”—largely through their attorneys—“regarding a
closing date, additional addenda to the [REPC], the final purchase
price, and agreed-upon upgrades which would be included.”
Zane further declared, “[O]n March 4, 2024, [Baum’s counsel]
provided a letter to our attorney indicating that [Baum] ‘is
providing confirmation [that] he will close [on the Property] as
required by the [c]ourt [o]rder.’” Additionally, Zane stated that
the Boyles had attended settlement, executed all required closing
documents, and paid the agreed purchase price; that Baum had
transferred title to the Property to the Boyles via warranty deed;
and that the Boyles had taken possession of the Property in March
2024 “and have occupied it ever since.”

¶8 The letter from Baum’s counsel was attached as an exhibit
to Zane’s declaration. The letter did not indicate that the sale of
the Property would be subject to any reservation of rights or that
Baum was complying with the court’s order under protest or
while anticipating filing a future appeal. The warranty deed was

2. Because the court’s summary judgment order did not
“adjudicate[] all claims and the rights and liabilities of all parties,”
it was not a “[j]udgment” under rule 54(a) of the Utah Rules of
Civil Procedure “from which an appeal of right lies.”

20250164-CA 3 2026 UT App 55
Boyle v. Baum

also attached as an exhibit, and it likewise conveyed the Property
to the Boyles without a reservation of rights.

¶9 Baum has not contested the facts set forth in Zane’s
declaration or the authenticity of the documents attached to it.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶10 Baum contends that the district court improperly granted
the Boyles’ motion for summary judgment. “We would ordinarily
review this ruling for correctness. But because we conclude that
the issues raised in [this] appeal are moot, we lack judicial power
to address them.” Bywater v. Brigham City Corp., 2024 UT App 53,
¶ 17, 548 P.3d 531 (cleaned up), cert. denied sub nom., Brigham City
v. Bywater, 554 P.3d 987 (Utah 2024).

ANALYSIS

¶11 “An appeal is moot if during the pendency of the appeal
circumstances change so that the controversy is eliminated,
thereby rendering the relief requested impossible or of no legal
effect.” Bywater v. Brigham City Corp., 2024 UT App 53, ¶ 21, 548
P.3d 531 (cleaned up), cert. denied sub nom., Brigham City v. Bywater,
554 P.3d 987 (Utah 2024). “Mootness does not provide the court
with a choice of whether to proceed with an appeal or not; it is
jurisdictional.” Id. (cleaned up).

¶12 Our supreme court has long held that when a party
complies with a judgment ordering the transfer of real property
in exchange for consideration without an attempt to preserve the
status quo or an expression of non-acquiescence in the
transaction, then the completed transaction renders moot the
appellate issues that might otherwise have arisen from the
judgment. See Trees v. Lewis, 738 P.2d 612, 613 (Utah 1987); Black v.
Alpha Fin. Corp., 656 P.2d 409, 410 (Utah 1982).

20250164-CA 4 2026 UT App 55
Boyle v. Baum

¶13 In Black v. Alpha Financial Corp., 656 P.2d 409 (Utah 1982), a
buyer and two sellers entered a contract “for the sale and
purchase of a shopping center.” Id. at 410. After paying on the
contract for a time, “the buyer became delinquent in its
payments,” and the sellers served a notice “giving the buyer [five]
days to bring the payments current or to suffer a forfeiture of all
payments made to date on the contract, as well as repossession of
the premises by the seller[s].” Id. “The buyer did not cure the
default to the satisfaction of the sellers,” and the sellers sued. Id.
“Following a trial . . . , [the] sellers were awarded a judgment
forfeiting the buyer’s interest in the contract and restoring
possession of the real property to the sellers,” subject “to the right
of the buyer to remedy its default and prevent forfeiture and
repossession by paying to the sellers within 30 days the entire
unpaid balance of the contract, together with all accrued interest,
attorney[] fees and court costs.” Id.

¶14 “The buyer availed itself of the opportunity afforded by the
trial court and paid the balance of the contract and received a
conveyance of the property.” Id. The buyer then appealed,
contending that the “sellers did not afford him proper notice of
the forfeiture, that [the] sellers waived their right to claim a
forfeiture, that the court improperly dismissed one of the buyer’s
affirmative defenses, and that the sellers did not sustain their
burden of proof at the trial.” Id.

¶15 Our supreme court dismissed the appeal as moot,
explaining as follows:

[T]he case has been rendered moot by the action of
the buyer in paying the sellers the balance of the
purchase price. The sellers no longer have any
interest in the property. The buyer is the owner.
Even if we were to agree with one or more of the
buyer’s contentions, there is no relief that we could
afford the buyer since he has paid the full purchase

20250164-CA 5 2026 UT App 55
Boyle v. Baum

price and completely extinguished the sellers’
interest in the property. We cannot revive the
contract and reinstate the parties to their original
positions. At the time the judgment below was
entered, the buyer, without complying with the
judgment, could have brought an appeal to this
[c]ourt after posting any necessary supersedeas
bond. Had that been done, the controversy between
the parties would still be alive on appeal. Since the
buyer did not take that route but instead paid the
contract balance and received a conveyance of the
property, all controversy between the parties was
settled and mooted.

Id.

¶16 The case of Trees v. Lewis, 738 P.2d 612 (Utah 1987), is
similar, except that in Trees it was—as here—a seller who
appealed after complying with an order requiring him to convey
property. See id. at 612. That case involved litigation under a
contract for the sale of a ranch. See id. Following a trial, “the trial
court ordered [the] seller to convey the ranch to [the] buyer and
to set up a payment schedule under which [the] buyer was to
make payments to [the] seller.” Id. at 613. The seller “did not file
a supersedeas bond as permitted” by the rules of civil procedure;
“rather, [the] seller moved off the ranch and cashed over $70,000
in checks tendered by [the] buyer, noting on the checks that he did
so in order to collect interest on the money.” Id. The seller then
appealed from the “judgment requiring him to specifically
perform [the] contract.” Id. at 612.

¶17 Our supreme court held that “by giving up possession of
the property and accepting the money tendered by [the] buyer,
[the] seller [had] waived his right to appeal.” Id. at 613 (cleaned
up). The court explained that “as a general rule, one who accepts
a benefit under a judgment is estopped from later attacking the

20250164-CA 6 2026 UT App 55
Boyle v. Baum

judgment on appeal, and one who acquiesces in a judgment
cannot later attack it.” Id. (cleaned up). The court then articulated,
as follows, the rationale behind this “acceptance-of-benefits
doctrine”:

An appellant who accepts the benefits of a judgment
from which he [or she] is appealing accomplishes a
significant shift in the burden of risk; he [or she]
exposes the respondent to the possibility not only of
a possible loss on appeal, but also the potential loss
of the benefit he [or she] has provided to the
appellant. For example, in this case, [the] seller has
taken over $70,000 of [the] buyer’s money which,
should we reverse on appeal, [the] buyer would
have to recover from [the] seller, who may not be
able or willing to refund it. Further, [the] seller has
allowed [the] buyer to inconvenience himself by
moving to the ranch and hiring a staff.

Id.

¶18 Consistent with Black and Trees, we have recently stated
that “a party’s failure to obtain a stay of a lower court judgment
may become material to the question of mootness.” Bywater v.
Brigham City Corp., 2024 UT App 53, ¶ 27, 548 P.3d 531 (cleaned
up), cert. denied sub nom., Brigham City v. Bywater, 554 P.3d 987
(Utah 2024); see also, e.g., Transportation All. Bank v. International
Confections Co., 2017 UT 55, ¶ 17, 423 P.3d 1171 (holding that an
appeal was moot because a debtor failed to seek a stay of an order
approving a receivership sale). Applying that general principle,
we determined in Bywater that Brigham City’s failure to act to
maintain the status quo pending appeal rendered its appeal moot.
The issue Brigham City sought to raise on appeal was whether a
landowner’s conveyance of a portion of his property to the city for
the construction of a road terminated the landowner’s previous
easement over that property. See Bywater, 2024 UT App 53, ¶¶ 1–2.

20250164-CA 7 2026 UT App 55
Boyle v. Baum

The district court had ruled that the landowner retained an
easement allowing him access to the road, and the city appealed.
See id. ¶ 2. However, “after doing so, [the city] not only took no
efforts to stay the ruling, but it also gave [the landowner] a permit
to build a concrete ‘curb cut’ from his property onto [the road],”
which he did. Id. The landowner argued that the city’s actions
mooted its appeal. See id. ¶ 3.

¶19 In addressing the mootness question, we highlighted the
fact that the city had approved the landowner’s request for
permission to build a curb cut “without any request for stay,
formal protest, or effort to preserve the pre-construction status
quo.” Id. ¶ 32 (cleaned up). We also highlighted the fact that the
landowner then spent funds completing the project and used the
curb cut for eighteen months without restriction. See id. ¶ 35. We
held that the city’s “inaction and actions alike [had] failed to
preserve the ‘status quo,’ thereby rendering [the] appeal moot.”
Id. In light of the authority we cited in support of our holding, we
concluded more generally that “our cases establish the principle
that an appeal may become moot where the appealing party
[does] not use available procedural tools to preserve the status
quo.” Id. ¶ 27 (cleaned up) (citing Transportation All. Bank, 2017 UT
55, ¶ 17; Richards v. Baum, 914 P.2d 719, 721–22 (Utah 1996); Kellch
v. Westland Mins. Corp., 484 P.2d 726, 726 (Utah 1971); Wasatch
County v. Utility Facility Review Board, 2018 UT App 191, ¶¶ 14, 16,
437 P.3d 406).

¶20 Here, Baum took no actions to preserve the status quo
before complying with the district court’s order to convey the
Property. Baum contends, however, that this should not render
his appeal moot because his situation is materially different from
those of the appellants in the cases cited above. Specifically, he
notes that those appellants complied with final judgments without
availing themselves of readily available procedural tools for
preserving the status quo, while Baum complied with an
interlocutory order for which—he asserts—there was no readily

20250164-CA 8 2026 UT App 55
Boyle v. Baum

available procedural tool he could have used to preserve the status
quo. In Baum’s words, his decision to close on the Property did
not render his appeal moot because “the trial court entered the
[order] that required [Baum] to act prior to a judgment being
entered and while there remained outstanding causes of action to
be determined” and, thus, Baum “only had the ability to comply
with the interlocutory order and convey [his] non-acquiescence at
the time the final judgment took effect.”

¶21 We acknowledge that this case presents a unique
procedural posture in that Baum was subject to an order
demanding his performance prior to his ability to appeal as of
right and seek a stay in connection with that appeal. Nevertheless,
Baum is mistaken that he lacked procedural tools to preserve the
status quo or—at the least—register his non-acquiescence
pending his eventual appeal. Indeed, Baum had at least four tools
at his disposal.

¶22 First, he could have filed a motion in the district court for a
stay of the court’s summary judgment order, relying on “the
inherent powers of the courts to grant a stay of proceedings.”
Lewis v. Moultree, 627 P.2d 94, 96 (Utah 1981). A court’s inherent
power to grant a stay of proceedings “is a discretionary power,
and the grounds therefor necessarily vary according to the
requirements of each individual case.” Id. But under the
circumstances of this case, a stay of reasonable duration upon
terms adequate to protect the Boyles’ interests would have been
within the court’s discretion to grant.

¶23 Second, Baum could have filed a petition for permission to
appeal the district court’s summary judgment order. Under rule
5(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, “[a]ny party may
seek an appeal from an interlocutory order by filing a petition for
permission to appeal from the interlocutory order with the
appellate court with jurisdiction over the case.” Thus, Baum was
free to seek permission to appeal the court’s order via a petition

20250164-CA 9 2026 UT App 55
Boyle v. Baum

to the supreme court. See Utah Code §§ 78A-3-102(4)(a)(vi), 78A-
4-103(3) (together setting forth the supreme court’s jurisdiction
over interlocutory appeals from general civil actions). Then, upon
filing such a petition, Baum could have moved the district court
under rule 62(c) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to stay its
order requiring specific performance. This rule allows a party to
ask the district court “in its discretion” to “suspend” an
“injunction” “[w]hen a party seeks an appeal from an interlocutory
order,” not merely when permission to appeal is granted. Utah R.
Civ. P. 62(c) (emphasis added). Thus, once Baum filed for
permission to appeal the district court’s order, he could have also
moved the district court to stay its order under rule 62(c). See Jenco,
LC v. Valderra Land Holdings, LLC, 2025 UT 20, ¶ 24, 572 P.3d 381
(holding that “when an order commands a party to perform an
action, like instructing a trustee to reconvey property, the order is
injunctive” and rule 62(c) applies (cleaned up)). And in this
scenario also, it would have been within the court’s discretion to
grant an appropriate stay.

¶24 Third, if the district court nevertheless denied a rule 62(c)
motion for a stay of the summary judgment order pending the
appellate court’s consideration of his petition for permission to
appeal that order or pending an appeal if one was granted, Baum
could have moved the appellate court for such a stay. See Utah R.
App. P. 8(a)(1) (“A party may move the appellate court for the
following relief pending appeal or pending disposition of a
petition [for permission to appeal an interlocutory order] . . . : an
order suspending . . . injunctive relief.”).

¶25 Fourth, if no court had granted him a stay, Baum could
have—at a minimum—executed the transfer documents and
accepted payment for the Property under protest or with a
reservation of rights. Doing so would have demonstrated his
effort and desire to maintain the status quo and not acquiesce in
conduct that would render any appeal issues moot. See generally
Bywater v. Brigham City Corp., 2024 UT App 53, ¶ 32, 548 P.3d 531

20250164-CA 10 2026 UT App 55
Boyle v. Baum

(highlighting the appellant’s lack of “formal protest” or “effort to
preserve the . . . status quo” as reasons for deeming the appeal
moot (cleaned up)), cert. denied sub nom., Brigham City v. Bywater,
554 P.3d 987 (Utah 2024).

¶26 Finally, we note that the considerations regarding a “shift
in the burden of risk” that our supreme court outlined when
discussing the “acceptance-of-benefits doctrine” in Trees apply
fully here. See Trees v. Lewis, 738 P.2d 612, 613 (Utah 1987). By
accepting the benefits of an order from which he intended to
appeal, Baum “accomplishe[d] a significant shift in the burden of
risk.” Id. He exposed the Boyles “to the possibility not only of a
possible loss on appeal, but also the potential loss of the benefit
[the Boyles] . . . provided to [Baum].” Id. Specifically, like the
situation with the seller in Trees, Baum “has taken . . . [the Boyles’]
money which, should we reverse on appeal, [the Boyles] would
have to recover from [Baum], who may not be able or willing to
refund it.” Id. Additionally, just as the seller in Trees allowed the
buyer “to inconvenience himself by moving to the ranch [in that
case] and hiring a staff,” id., Baum has allowed the Boyles to
inconvenience themselves by, for example, moving into the
Property and paying mortgage interest for multiple years.

¶27 In sum, as with a party who appeals a final judgment
ordering the transfer of real property, a party who anticipates
appealing from an interlocutory order for the transfer of real
property has procedural tools for preserving the status quo. And
the practical considerations of a failure to use such tools are
largely the same in each circumstance. Accordingly, we extend
the principles announced in prior cases to the circumstances here
and hold that Baum’s acceptance of the Boyles’ money and
conveyance of the Property subject to no reservation of rights,
protest, or use of available procedural tools to preserve the status
quo rendered moot the issues he now seeks to raise on appeal. We
therefore lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See State
v. Dowhaniuk, 2025 UT App 100, ¶ 33, 574 P.3d 1000 (stating that

20250164-CA 11 2026 UT App 55
Boyle v. Baum

“if the issues for our review on appeal have been rendered moot,”
then “we lose jurisdiction over the appeal” and “have no choice
but to dismiss it”).

CONCLUSION

¶28 Baum’s appeal is moot, and we therefore grant the Boyles’
motion to dismiss. We award the Boyles attorney fees incurred on
appeal and remand the matter to the district court for the limited
purpose of calculating those fees.

20250164-CA 12 2026 UT App 55