Ray Quinney & Nebeker P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400, Salt Lake City, UT 84145
Phone:
801 532-1500 (Phone)
Specialties:
Commercial Law Consumer Credit Secured Transactions
ISLN:
903135861
Admitted:
1984, Utah 1987, Arizona
University:
University of Utah, B.S., magna cum laude, 1981
Law School:
Brigham Young University, J.D., magna cum laude, 1984
Reported:
Madsen v. Washington Mutual Bank, 199 P.3d 898 (Utah 2008) cert. denied 556 U.S. 1282 (2009) (Represented defendant mortgage lender in a class action seeking interest on tax and insurance escrowed funds. The trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff class was reversed by the appellate court on grounds of federal preemption.) (Related case at Madsen v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 296 P.3d 671 (Utah 2012)); Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank West, N.A., 208 P.3d 1066 (Ut. Ct. App. 2009) (Represented defendant bank, acting as escrow agent, in case seeking damages for breach of an escrow agreement. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant bank was affirmed on appeal based on a finding of no damages.); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. HMA, LLC, 169 P.3d 433 (Utah 2007) (Represented bank in action to collect $500,000 overdraft. Defendants counterclaimed alleging that the payor bank's untimely return of an item by a highly expeditious means barred the plaintiff depository bank from charging back the returned item that caused the overdraft. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff bank was affirmed on appeal, holding that the item was timely returned.); Ramsey v. Hancock, 79 P.3d 423 (Ut. Ct. App. 2003) (Represented depository bank in action brought by non-customer payee of check that was deposited by the other payee without endorsement. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of the bank was affirmed on appeal, holding that the depository bank owed no duty to the non-customer payee of the check.); APS v. Briggs, 927 P.2d 670 (Ut. Ct. App. 1996) (Represented lender in an action to collect the deficiency amount owed by the makers of the note following foreclosure of the trust deed securing the note. The trial court dismissed the action based on the statute of limitations. The appellate court reversed, holding that the combined effect of the Utah one-action rule, and the bankruptcy of the co-maker, tolled the statute of limitations.); City Consumer Services v. Peters, 815 P.2d 234 (Utah 1991) (Represented amicus party in advocating that the Utah one-action rule and Utah deficiency statute do not apply to a junior lienholder foreclosed out by a senior lienholder.).
Links:
Site
Biography:
Phi Kappa Phi; Order of the Coif. Lead Note Editor, Brigham Young University Law Review, 1983-1984. Mr. Tingey maintains an AV Preeminent (5.0) rating with Martindale-Hubbell, which is the highest rat...