Neeshan v. Ravonsheed
Neeshan v. Ravonsheed, 2024 UT App 144 (Tenney, J.)
Contracts
Neeshan owed Maxfield an amount under the terms of a promissory note. The note contained a penalty provision for late or missed payments as well as an antiwaiver provision. Neeshan missed payments, and when she asked Maxfield how much she owned, Maxfield failed to calculate late fees. Maxfield later sold the note to Ravonsheed, who attempted to collect the late fees owed. Neeshan refused to pay the late fees and sued, claiming that Maxfield had waived the right to collect the penalty amounts. The district court concluded that Ravonsheed retained the right to collect those amounts under the antiwaiver provision. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
- The district court correctly concluded that Maxwell had not intentionally waived his right to collect penalty payments under the terms of the note.
- Practice tip: Utah’s waiver doctrine requires the intentional relinquishment of a known right, unless a party intentionally acts in a manner inconsistent with its contractual rights. However, if the contract contains an antiwaiver provision, a party cannot waive a contractual right merely by failing to enforce it.