The Utah Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Brooke Jackson against Ivory Homes Ltd. and My Move Mortgage LLC. The case centers around Jackson's attempt to purchase a home, which ultimately fell through due to financing issues. The court's decision, issued on November 5, 2026, is significant as it clarifies the legal boundaries regarding claims of fraud and breach of contract in real estate transactions.

Jackson's case began when she expressed interest in buying a home from Ivory Homes. After selecting a lot and a house plan, she was assured by the company that she would easily secure financing through its preferred lender, My Move Mortgage. Based on these assurances, Jackson signed a contract and made two deposits totaling $131,000. However, when My Move Mortgage did not approve her for financing, Jackson withdrew from the contract and sought to recover her deposits, leading to her lawsuit against Ivory Homes, its sales agent Derek Wenn, and My Move Mortgage.

The dispute escalated to the Fourth District Court in Spanish Fork, where Jackson filed claims for fraud, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss all claims, which the court granted. Jackson's subsequent request to amend her complaint was also denied. She appealed the district court's decision, which has now been affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Background

Brooke Jackson's journey to purchase a home began in early 2022 when she approached Ivory Homes, drawn by the strength of the housing market and low interest rates. Jackson was convinced to build a new home in Provo, Utah, with a total purchase price of $783,400. Although she had not been preapproved for a loan, Ivory assured her that she would qualify for financing through My Move Mortgage.

To secure her chosen lot, Jackson paid an initial deposit of $5,000, which was nonrefundable but credited toward the purchase price. She later signed a real estate purchase agreement that outlined her obligations, including the requirement to complete a loan application and provide proof of financing by a specified date. The agreement also indicated that while Jackson was encouraged to use My Move Mortgage, she was not required to do so.

Despite assurances from both Ivory and My Move Mortgage, Jackson struggled to obtain the necessary financing. After several delays and lack of communication from the lender, she was ultimately denied a loan due to issues related to her tax returns. Faced with this outcome, Jackson withdrew from the agreement and sought to recover her deposits, leading to her legal action.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge John D. Luthy and joined by Judges Gregory K. Orme and Ryan D. Tenney, affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss Jackson's claims. The court ruled that Jackson's fraud claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine, which states that when a contract exists between parties, tort claims related to that contract are not permissible. The court noted, "The economic loss rule bars Jackson’s fraud-based claims," emphasizing that the subject matter of the alleged fraudulent inducement was already addressed in the contract.

Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of Jackson's unjust enrichment claim, stating that such a claim cannot exist when there is an enforceable contract governing the parties' rights. The court found that the agreement Jackson signed was indeed enforceable and governed her relationship with Ivory Homes. The ruling also addressed Jackson's breach of contract claim, concluding that she failed to identify any specific contractual duty that Ivory had breached.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future real estate transactions in Utah. It reinforces the importance of understanding the terms of contracts and the limitations of claims that can be made when a contract is in place. The court's decision clarifies that buyers cannot assert tort claims such as fraud if the issues at hand are covered by the contract they signed.

The ruling may also deter similar lawsuits from buyers who may feel misled in real estate transactions, as the court's application of the economic loss doctrine limits the avenues available for legal recourse. Buyers are reminded to conduct thorough due diligence and ensure they understand the implications of any agreements they enter into.

What's Next

Jackson's options for further legal action are limited, as the Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of her claims. It is unclear whether she will seek to appeal the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court. There are currently no related cases pending that could influence this decision.