The Utah Supreme Court issued an amended opinion Oct. 30 in *Talisker Partnership v. Midtown Acquisitions L.P.* (Utah 2025), granting in part Talisker's petition for rehearing and modifying several key provisions of the original decision. The case involves a complex real estate dispute that appears to stem from a loan default by Talisker Finance, LLC, and its affiliates.
The high court's amended ruling modifies paragraphs 21, 29, and 30 of the original opinion, adds a new footnote four, and revises what have become footnotes five and six. Associate Chief Justice Pearce authored the opinion for a unanimous court that included Chief Justice Durrant, Justice Petersen, Justice Hagen, and Justice Pohlman.
The case centers on appellants Talisker Partnership and 12 related entities, including Talisker Investments (Canada) Inc., Talisker Investments (U.S.) Inc., Talisker Developments Inc., and United Park City Mines Company. The entities appear to be connected to significant real estate development operations, with several bearing names suggesting ties to Park City-area properties, including Tuhaye LLC, Tuhaye Golf, LLC, and Talisker Club, LLC.
Appellees in the case include Midtown Acquisitions L.P. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The dispute appears to have originated from a loan default involving Talisker Finance, LLC, and its affiliates, though the full scope of the underlying financial arrangements and default circumstances are not detailed in the available court documents.
The case was heard on direct appeal from the Third District Court in Summit County, where the Honorable Richard E. Mrazik presided over the lower court proceedings. The Utah Supreme Court heard oral arguments May 7, 2025, before issuing its initial opinion and subsequently considering Talisker's petition for rehearing.
Talisker was represented by a team of attorneys from Salt Lake City, including P. Bruce Badger, Jason W. Hardin, Artemis D. Vamianakis, Tanner J. Bean, and Thomas B. Stockard. Midtown Acquisitions L.P. was represented by Matthew L. Lalli, Troy J. Aramburu, David G. Barker, Ben T. Welch, Bret R. Evans, and Cameron J. Cutler, also from Salt Lake City. Wells Fargo Bank was represented by George W. Pratt and Jack Darrington.
The amended opinion follows established Utah Supreme Court procedure for post-decision modifications. When parties file petitions for rehearing, the court may grant such petitions in whole or in part, leading to amended opinions that clarify or modify specific provisions of the original ruling. In this case, the court found merit in portions of Talisker's rehearing petition, leading to the targeted modifications.
The case designation 2025 UT 49 indicates this is the 49th published opinion from the Utah Supreme Court in 2025. The amended opinion includes the standard notation that it remains subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter, which serves as the official repository for Utah appellate court decisions.
The complex party structure suggests this dispute involves substantial real estate holdings and development projects. The inclusion of entities with "Tuhaye" in their names likely references the Tuhaye residential development in Park City, while other entity names suggest broader real estate investment and development activities across Utah.
Summit County, where the lower court proceedings took place, encompasses Park City and surrounding areas, reinforcing the apparent connection to significant resort and residential real estate development projects in the region. The involvement of Wells Fargo Bank as a named appellee suggests the dispute involves substantial financing arrangements.
The modified paragraphs in the amended opinion likely address key legal or factual determinations that the court found warranted clarification or revision based on Talisker's rehearing arguments. While the specific nature of these modifications is not detailed in the available documents, they represent substantive changes significant enough to warrant republication of the opinion.
The case appears to involve multiple layers of corporate structure and real estate development entities, suggesting complex business arrangements and potentially substantial financial stakes. The petition for rehearing and subsequent amendments indicate the parties viewed the original opinion as containing issues requiring court attention and potential modification.
The amended opinion will be subject to final editing before publication in the Pacific Reporter, which provides the authoritative text for citation in future legal proceedings. Legal practitioners and parties involved in similar real estate development disputes will likely examine the final published version for guidance on relevant legal principles.