IN THE FOURTH DISTRICT COURT, PROVO DEPARTMENT ‘UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH Patterson Construction, Inc., PHI Properties, Inc., Box Elder Development SPECIAL VERDICT L.C,, Box Elder Properties Limited Partnership, Box Elder Alpine Land, LLC, Pine Grove Properties Limited Partnership, Meadowbrook Properties Limited Partnership, Meadowbrook Land, LLC, Sunset Mountain Properties Limited Partnership, Wayne M. Patterson, James K. Patterson, and Blaine E. Patterson Plaintiffs, v. | | Case No. 140400466 Alpine City and Don Watkins, Judge Low | Defendant, [SPECIAL VERDICT FORM BEGINS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]| MEMBERS OF THE JURY: Please answer the following questions: BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM 1. Have Plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Alpine City (the “City”) materially breached its contractual obligations under the 1992 and/or 2011 Settlement Agreements? The 1992 Settlement Agreement: ANSWER: Yes x ‘No The 2011 Settlement Agreement: ANSWER: Yes_X No Ifyou answered YES to either part of Question No. 1, proceed to Question No. 2. If you answered NO to both parts of Question No. 1, proceed to Question No. 3. 2. What damages, if any, have Plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that they suffered as a result of any such breach? answer; $_], 456,000 INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE AND EXISTING ECONOMIC RELATII 3, Have Plaintiffs proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ prospective and/or existing economic relations? Don Watkins: ANSWER: Yes X No The City: ‘ANSWER: Yes_X_ No Ifyou answered YES as to any of the Defendants listed in Question No. 3, proceed to answer Question Nos. 4 and 5. If you answered NO to Question No. 3, proceed to Question No. 6. | 4, What amount of economic and/or noneconomic damages, if any, have Plaintifis proven they suffered as a result of Defendants’ conduct?40, 000 5. Have Plaintiffs proven by clear and convincing evidence that Don Watkins’ acts or omissions are the result of willful and malicious conduct or conduct that ‘manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard for, Plaintifis’ rights? ANSWER: ANSWER: Yes 4 No DEFAMATION CLAIM AGAINST DON WATKINS 6. Have Pattersons’ proven by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Don Watkins published defamatory statements about any of them? ANSWER! Yes A No Ifyou answered YES to Question No. 6, please refer to Exhibit A and identify which statement(s) therein, ifany, defamed any of the Pattersons, and then proceed to answer Question No. 7. If you answered NO to Question No. 6, proceed to Question No. 11. 7, Have Pattetsons proven by clear and convincing evidence that Don Watkins made any of the defamatory statements identified in Exhibit A, with actual malice? ANSWER; Yes No X Ifyou answered YES to Question No. 7, please identify on Exhibit A which defamatory statement(s) therein, if any, were made with actual malice, and then proceed to answer Question No. 8. If you answered NO to Question No. 7, proceed to Question No. 11. 8 Do you find that Don Watkins’ defamatory statements that were made with actual malice, if any, as identified in Exhibit A, caused damages to the Pattersons? ANSWER:| Yes No Ifyou answered YES to Question No. 8, proceed to Question No. 9. If you answered NO to Question No. 8, proceed to Question No. 11. | 9. What amount of economic and/or noneconomic damages, if any, have the Pattersons suffered as a result of Don Watkins’ defamatory statements? ANSWER: $ ——___—_++- "The tem “Pattersons” refer to Patterson Construction, Wayne Paterson, Blaine Paterson, and James Patterson.| 10. Have Plaintiffs proven by clear and convincing evidence that Don Watkins’ acts or omissions are the result of willful and malicious conduct or conduct that manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard for, Plaintiffs’ rights? ANSWER; Yes No FALSE LIGHT CLAIM AGAINST DON WATKINS 11. Have Pattersons proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Don Watkins published statements that cast any of the Pattersons in a false light? ANSWER) Yes % No Ifyou answered YES to Question No. 11, please refer to Exhibit B and identify which of statements listed therein cast any of the Pattersons in a false light, and then proceed to answer Question No. 12. If you answered NO to Question No. 11, proceed to Question No. 16. 12. ‘Have Pattefsons proven by clear and convincing evidence that Don Watkins made any of the false light statements identified in Exhibit B, with actual malice? ANSWER! Yes XK No Ifyou answered YES to Question No. 12, please identify on Exhibit B which false light statement() therein were tnade with actual malice, and then proceed to answer Question No. 13. Ifyou answered NO to Question No. 12, proceed to answer Question No. 16. 13. Do you find that Don Watkins’ false light statements that were made with actual malice if any, a identified in Exhibit B, caused damages tothe Pattersons? ANSWER:| Yes X No Ifyou answered YES to Question No. 13, proceed to Question No. 14, If you answered ‘NO to Question No. 13, proceed to Question No. 16. 14, What amount of economic and/or noneconomic damages, if any, have the Pattersons suffered as a result of Don Watkins’ false light statements that were made with dotual malice? ANSWER:| $_100 | 15. Have Plaintiffs proven by clear and convincing evidence that Don Watkins’ acts ‘or omissions are the result of willful and malicious conduct or conduct that | | 3manifests a knowing and reckless indifference toward, and a disregard for, Plaintifis’ rights? ANSWER: Yes K_ No. Ifyou have awarded damages in answer to Question Nos. 2, 4, 9, and/or 14, above, please proceed to the next question. Otherwise, have the Jury Foreperson sign this Special Verdict Form, 16. Doany of the damages you have awarded in answer to Question Nos. 2, 4, 9, and/or 14, above, overlap or compensate for the same injury’? ANSWER: Yes No 17. _If'so, what is the total amount of damages Plaintiffs are entitled to recover, without dopble counting? ANSWER: $, 156,000 ‘The Foreperson should sign and date the special verdict and hand it to the bailiff. DATED this | day of June, 2018. Foreperson| EXHIBIT A ~ LIST OF POTENTIALLY DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS Yes___ [No] Made with | “After Ileft office in 2002 the city continued to resist actual settling with Patterson Construction year after year This malice | was true until 2011 when unknown fo most all of us the city gave Patterson what they sought for over the previous many years connection to the city sewer i system. This was essential for them to develop their newest proposed project in the county that contains 59 ‘NEW LOTS in the same area that is now devastated by | fire and floods.” (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 70, p. 1) Yes___ |No_X_ | Made with | “SUPPORT UWAF WITH YOUR TIME AND actual MONEY. This 7-year-old Alpine non-profit malice | organization, funded mostly by citizens of Alpine has gone to court to open historic roads and trails that have been illegally closed by fences. Last year Alpine City helped this important cause by donating ten thousand dollars to UWAF. UWAF has recently filed a lawsuit to ‘open the roads and trails in the proposed Box Elder South subdivision. Please email UWAFinfo@gmail.com to offer money and or time to this very important effort.” (Plaintifis’ Exhibit 100, p. 1)EXHIBIT B~LIST OF POTENTIAL FALSE LIGHT STATEMENTS ‘Yes: Noh Made with actual malice “Patterson Construction v. Alpine City.” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 70, p. 1) Yes ho No Made with actual malice X “In the early 1990s Patterson Construction proposed the Box Elder subdivision. Alpine’s engineer was ‘opposed to the subdivision for various reasons including its hazardous location. He specifically stated, “The proposed subdivision does not comply with item #2 because its planned location is at the mouth of Box Elder Canyon and directly in the path of the natural drainage channel for that area,’ Alpine City August 6, 1990, concept review, Lee Wimmer City Engineer. Patterson Construction sued the city. The city later approved the subdivision. In my opinion the city should not have given into the developer's lawsuit allowing homes to be built in this now proven flood prone area.” (Plaintiffs? Exhibit 70, p. 1) Yee ‘No. “During the past two years we have witnessed the costly mistake of this action. Homes have been damaged residents’ lives have been disrupted and Alpine citizens are now forced to pay costly protection measures. The huge historic drainage out of Box Elder Canyon was covered and replaced with a small drainage pipe when the subdivision ‘was put in, This drainage pipe failed during three separate storms this summer leaving the only two roads to the area impassable. This means that some of our residents were isolated from emergency personnel.” (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 70, p. 1) Yes XK No “Made with malice “T entered city government in 1996 to stop additional requests by landowners that want to develop ground in hazardous and environmentally sensitive areas on the hillsides. During this period Patterson Construction renewed their previously settled lawsuit against the city. This didn’t intimidate us yet we were very frustrated by the costly legal fees required to defend the city’s nn once again, and we did not give in to the 6‘demands of this developer.” (Plaintifis’ Ex! 70, p. 1) Yes | No_X_| Made with | “After I left office in 2002 the city continued to actual resist settling with Patterson Construction year after malice ___ | year This was true until 2011 when unknown to ‘most all of us the city gave Patterson what they sought for over the previous many years connection to the city sewer system. This was essential for them. to develop their newest proposed project in the county that contains $9 NEW LOTS in the same area that is now devastated by fire and floods.” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 70, p. 1) Yes X|No___| Made with | “Unfortunately, a few days later the county reversed actual their agreement saying they were forced by the malice___ | developer to act by December 17. The county should never feel forced to act by a developer. We hope that they will not bend to the intimidation of legal action from Patterson Construction.” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 70, p. 1) ‘Yes___ [No_X_ | Made with | “They don’t want to be sued by Patterson actual Construction any more than Alpine City does.” malice Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 70, p. 1) ‘Yes’ No YO | Made with | “The strong legal argument against the county actual approving the subdivision is public safety.” malice Public Safety Outwelghs Oeveloper Demands (Plaintiffs? Exhibit 70, p. 1) Yes & |No___ | Made with | “In addition, Brad Freeman, the Lone Peak Fire 7actual malice A Chief has also told the county he must be invited to. review the subdivision for the safety of the potential residents as well as protection of those fighting the fire. He wonders why the county has never reached out to him. The County subcontracts fire protection to cities for “structures” as they only have limited fire equipment in Spanish Fork. He also said that during recent flooding in the same areas of this proposed development one of his emergency vehicles was stranded. The Fire Chief is especially concerned with a subdivision surrounded by dry, ‘combustible foliage on three sides without proper firebreak. He asked the county why they had not included him in the fire safety requirements since it is his firefighters that will be put in harm’s way.” Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 70, p. 2) Ye ‘No Made with actual malice yy “Recently Imet with the State of Utab’s top expert (on post-fire debris flaws and floods. He indicates that Box Elder and Wadsworth Canyons “will continue to have problems.” Representing the State of Utah, he is willing to review studies done by ‘engineers from the developer and offer his expert ‘opinion on whether or not the engineers have done the proper studies for the development. Since the cotinty has this area designated as a hazardous area ‘why have they not contacted the state’s top experts as opposed to relying on just the developer's experts who admitted to having little expertise in post-fire geologic hazards?” (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 70, p. 2) Yes X No Made with actual malice % “MAYOR DON’S TOP 5. PATTERSON'S BOX ELDER SOUTH SUBDIVISION. On January 6th the Utah County Planning Commission voted 5-2 to deny this subdivision. For reasons beyond my understanding three Utah County Commissioners voted to approve it the next day. The 3 Commissioners, Anderson, Ellertson and Whitney never once mentioned any public safety arguments presented by their own Planning Commissioners the night before.” (Plaingiffs’ Exhibit 100, p. 9) ‘Yes: Made with actual malice COMPENSATION FOR FIRE DAMAGE. On January 14th the Alpine City Council voted to retain the law firm of Ray, Quinney and Nebeker to appeal the decision of the Utah County Commissioners to the Utah 8District Court. The Council also voted to retain the same law firm regarding damages to Alpine City from the Quail Creek. (Plaintiffs? Exhibit 100, Pd) ‘Yes: No Made with actual malice “SUPPORT UWAF WITH YOUR TIME AND MONEY. This 7-year-old Alpine non-profit organization, funded mostly by citizens of Alpine has gone to court to open historic roads and trails that have been illegally closed by fences, Last year Alpine City helped this important cause by donating ten thousand dollars to UWAF, UWAF has recently filed a lawsuit to open the roads and trails in the proposed Box Elder South subdivision. Please email UWAFinfo@gmail.com to offer money and or time to this very important effort.” (Plaintiffs? Exhibit 100, p24)