A judge on Friday gave a Southern Utah family until Wednesday to raise nearly half a million dollars or risk losing their home in a sheriff’s sale.
Fifth District Court Judge Matthew L. Bell ordered Bryson and Ruth Seegmiller to post a $425,000 bond following a motion filed by the plaintiffs in a wrongful death lawsuit.
The lawsuit stems from a tragic incident on June 11, 2022, when Kevin Cooper, the Seegmillers’ guest at a birthday party, drowned at Newcastle Reservoir. Despite safety warnings, witnesses said Cooper entered the water without a life jacket and drowned.
His parents, William and Tina Cooper, subsequently filed a $9.5 million lawsuit against the Seegmillers. In their lawsuit, they sought compensation for their son’s projected future earnings, asserting that they had relied on him to support them due to their reported disabilities and to care for their autistic son after they were gone.
The Seegmillers have chosen to represent themselves throughout their legal challenges, a decision influenced by their faith. This choice has led to repeated legal complications, including a default judgment due to their inadequate responses to court proceedings.
As a result, the court found in favor of the Coopers and ordered the sale of the Seegmillers’ home and farm in Beryl at a sheriff’s auction to satisfy the judgment.
The sale, initially set for July, was postponed by Iron County Sheriff Ken Carpenter to allow the Seegmillers additional time to be heard in court. It is rescheduled for August 28.
On August 16, Bell issued a temporary stay of the auction, giving the Seegmillers 90 days to pursue an appeal. Following that decision, the Coopers’ attorney, Jonathan Kirk, filed a motion objecting to the stay without securing his clients’ interest through the appeal.
Kirk argued that the Seegmillers should be required to post a bond or other security. He suggested that this could be set as high as $25 million to cover the judgment, legal fees, and interest.
In a hearing Monday to address the Coopers’ motion, Bell deemed the $25 million excessive and emphasized the need for a “fair” solution.
“As I indicated last week, I want to afford you (Seegmillers) the benefit of a stay either a short-term stay of up to 90 days or longer, if, you or the other side, for that matter, pursue any kind of an appeal on any of the court’s rulings,” Bell said.
Ultimately, Bell ruled that the Seegmillers must post a $425,000 bond or pay the full security amount. This number reflected the estimated value of their real property.
Known as an appeal or supersedeas bond, this type of bond is designed to ensure that the plaintiffs’ financial interests are protected while the appeal is pending.
Typically, securing such a bond requires the appellant to pay an annual premium, usually around 1% to 3% of the bond amount, which in this case would be between $4,250 and $12,750. The Seegmillers argued, however, they could not afford the bond, claiming the Coopers had frozen their bank accounts and seized other assets.
“You have frozen all of our bank accounts and taken all of our assets and we have absolutely no money and no way of paying this,” Bryson Seegmiller said.
Bryson Seegmiller accused Bell and Kirk of deliberately making it impossible for them to comply with the court’s demands.
“I think all those fees and everything else, again if we had access so we could actually cash a check and we could actually function with finances but everything’s been frozen, everything’s been tied up we have no way of functioning, any financial system,” he said.
“You have literally closed us out of society and I believe you guys are very well aware of that and I think this is a tactic you guys are using to collapse us, to get your system, to prevent us from taking it to the appellate court.”
Frustrated with the Seegmillers, Bell responded to the accusations, warning Seegmiller not to engage in an argument with him.
He emphasized that Seegmiller had chosen not to participate in the process earlier and advised him to seek legal counsel moving forward, warning that proceeding without it could be risky.
“To the contrary, when you say ‘your system,’ we’re talking about this system as I said last week, and I’m not going to get into an argument so don’t start going back and forth with me,” Bell said. “You’re talking about an opportunity where you made it very clear that you did not intend to participate.”
“I made a ruling last week, we tried to give you opportunities to participate and you ignored this process and now you’re in this position and you did so, unfortunately without the advice of counsel, which is your right.”
Bell clarified that his intention was to help them stay in their home while the appeal was pursued, while also ensuring that the plaintiffs had security in the property during the process.
“…What I am here to do today is try to give you an avenue in which you can enjoy the benefits of the stay, to allow you to remain in your home while you pursue the appeal.”
“By rule I have to give the plaintiffs the opportunity to have some security in that property, which they now have an interest, unless and until, the court of appeals or Utah Supreme Court rules otherwise.”
Tensions continued during the hearing when Bell perceived Bryson Seegmiller’s comments as increasingly argumentative, prompting the judge to mute his microphone.
Kirk later raised concerns about the timing of the bond payment, noting uncertainty about whether the sale had been officially canceled.
He argued that if the sheriff hadn’t called off the sale, the bond or security would need to be paid before the deadline. This would leave the Seegmillers with just five days—only three of them business days—to come up with the money.
Bell concurred, stating that if the sale was still scheduled, it would proceed unless the bond was posted in time. However he also stressed he would not interfere with the Sheriff’s decision on when to hold the auction.
“If the defendants fail to satisfy these conditions, it’s going to nullify the stay that I want to give them while they pursue an appeal,” Bell said. “… As to what this says about the date of the sheriff’s sale, that’s not something I’m going to start dictating. I’m going to refer to the sheriff’s office and I’m not going to give any specific orders there.”
In a follow-up interview with Cedar City News, Carpenter said that he had not canceled Wednesday’s sale, as he had not received any order to do so, and that he would not delay it again.
“I rescheduled that sale once but I won’t do it again,” Carpenter said. “I wanted them to have their day in court hoping they would get an attorney to defend themselves. They’ve now had an opportunity to do that and at this point if the bond is paid by Wednesday we will move forward.”
Kirk explained that if the home is sold, the Seegmillers will have six months to reclaim the property by paying the amount of the winning bid plus four percent.
“They would not be immediately kicked out of the house, assuming the sale goes forward,” Kirk said. “That would give them time to figure out how best to handle that.”
As the hearing concluded, Bryson Seegmiller challenged the ruling, asserting his land was protected by a patent and beyond the court’s authority.
“You have no right to our land, it is patented,” he said.
The patent claim is rooted in sovereign ideology and tied to the belief that land patents — original government grants of land — exempt individuals from taxes, foreclosures, and other legal actions. Courts have consistently rejected these arguments as legally invalid.
Bell promptly ended the online session, concluding the hearing without further comment.
The Seegmillers later told Cedar City News they were unsure of their next steps, but without access to finances or resources, they believed stopping the sale would be difficult.
“We are looking at different options but at this point we just don’t know,” Ruth Seegmiller said.
Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2024, all rights reserved.