Worked example: Closing Cost in Utah

Example inputs

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Closing Cost calculator.

Below is a worked example of a closing cost calculation in Utah using DocketMath with jurisdiction-aware assumptions based on Utah’s general statute of limitations (SOL) rules.

Scenario (what you’re trying to model)

You want to estimate the closing cost for a case that may be impacted by the timing of the claim under Utah’s limitations period. DocketMath uses a jurisdiction-aware default for Utah because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the jurisdiction data provided.

Utah rules used in this example

• General SOL period: 4 years
• General statute cited: Utah Code § 76-1-302
• Source / court guidance (background): https://www.utcourts.gov/en/legal-help/legal-help/procedures/statute-limitation.html

Important note (how this example handles limitations): This example uses Utah’s general/default SOL period of 4 years. No claim-type-specific shorter/longer rule is applied here because none was provided/found in the jurisdiction data you supplied. Also, this is an illustration—not legal advice.

Example inputs (used by DocketMath → closing-cost calculator)

Use the same structure below when you run your own calculation in DocketMath.

• Jurisdiction: Utah (US-UT)
• Filing target date: 2026-04-15
• Event/trigger date: 2022-04-15
• Claim amount (principal): $25,000
• Expected administrative costs: $600
• Expected service/notice costs: $220
• Expected attorney time (modeled): 12 hours
• Hourly rate (modeled): $225
• Court-related filing/fee estimate: $400
• Estimated settlement / disposition discount factor: 0.10 (10%)

To try DocketMath yourself, use the primary CTA for this workflow:

• /tools/closing-cost

Why these inputs matter

Your event/trigger date and your filing target date determine how DocketMath interprets “timeliness” relative to the 4-year general SOL. The cost components (administrative, service/notice, court fees) and modeled attorney time drive the baseline “cost to resolve” portion of the estimate. Finally, the disposition discount factor changes the net result by adjusting the modeled effect of the expected resolution/disposition path.

Example run

Run the Closing Cost calculator using the example inputs above. Review the breakdown for intermediate steps (segments, adjustments, or rate changes) so you can see how each input moves the output. Save the result for reference and compare it to your actual scenario.

Step 1: Compute time between event and filing

• Event/trigger date: 2022-04-15
• Filing target date: 2026-04-15
• Elapsed time: 4 years (exactly at the general SOL boundary)

Because this is Utah and this example uses the general/default period provided in the jurisdiction data, DocketMath applies:

• General SOL period = 4 years under Utah Code § 76-1-302

In other words, this scenario lands right on the edge of the general limitations window.

Step 2: Apply DocketMath’s closing cost structure (worked arithmetic)

Below is a representative breakdown consistent with a “closing-cost style” calculation: add cost components, add modeled time-based costs, then apply the disposition discount factor to reflect the net effect of the expected resolution path.

A) Fixed/estimated costs

• Administrative costs: $600
• Service/notice costs: $220
• Court-related filing/fee estimate: $400

Subtotal (fixed costs):

• $600 + $220 + $400 = $1,220

B) Time-based costs

• Hours: 12
• Rate: $225/hour

Time cost:

• 12 × 225 = $2,700

C) Total pre-disposition (principal + costs)

• Pre-disposition total:

  • $1,220 + $2,700 + principal $25,000
  • = $28,920

D) Disposition discount

You provided a discount factor of 0.10 (10%). DocketMath applies this as a reduction to reflect the modeled net impact of settlement/closing dynamics.

• Discount amount:

  • 10% × $28,920 = $2,892
• Net modeled closing cost:

  • $28,920 − $2,892 = $26,028

Step 3: Timeliness overlay using Utah’s general SOL

Since the elapsed time is exactly 4 years, DocketMath’s Utah-aware logic treats the timeliness input as within the general/default limitations window, based on the rules used in this example.

Reminder/avoid overgeneralization: This worked example focuses only on the general limitations period because that’s what the jurisdiction data supplied. Utah has many statutes and exceptions across different legal contexts; the effective limitations window can change materially for particular claim types or accrual rules that are not represented in this dataset.

Example output (summary)

For this scenario, the modeled result is:

Sensitivity check

Even with the same basic cost inputs, the modeled net closing cost can change a lot when you alter (a) dates that affect SOL “timeliness” or (b) the disposition discount factor.

To test sensitivity, change one high-impact input (like the rate, start date, or cap) and rerun the calculation. Compare the outputs side by side so you can see how small input shifts affect the result.

Sensitivity 1: Filing 6 months later (timing shift)

Change only the filing target date:

• Event/trigger date: 2022-04-15
• Filing target date: 2026-10-15
• Elapsed time: 4 years + 6 months

What this implies under the provided assumptions:

• Because the example uses Utah’s general/default 4-year SOL, moving beyond 4 years shifts the scenario outside that boundary.

Expected effect on output:

• In many closing-cost calculators, being outside the SOL window changes the timeliness overlay and can reduce expected net recovery/disposition, which typically moves the modeled figure downward. The exact numeric impact depends on DocketMath’s internal “timeliness overlay” logic for this tool.

How to test quickly in DocketMath:
Run the same cost inputs and update only the two date fields in /tools/closing-cost.

Sensitivity 2: Move event/trigger date by 3 months earlier

Now change only the event date:

• Event/trigger date: 2022-01-15
• Filing target date: 2026-04-15
• Elapsed time: 4 years + 3 months

Expected effect:

• This also moves the scenario outside the 4-year general SOL, so you should expect a different timeliness-driven outcome in the tool versus the boundary scenario.

Sensitivity 3: Adjust disposition discount factor

Keep the boundary dates (exactly 4 years) but change the discount factor.

Base scenario math (from the worked example):

• Pre-disposition total: $28,920

Now apply different discount factors:

• Discount factor 0.05

  • Discount: 5% × $28,920 = $1,446
  • Net: $28,920 − $1,446 = $27,474
• Discount factor 0.10

  • Discount: 10% × $28,920 = $2,892
  • Net: $28,920 − $2,892 = $26,028
• Discount factor 0.20

  • Discount: 20% × $28,920 = $5,784
  • Net: $28,920 − $5,784 = $23,136

Takeaway: Even if SOL timing is held constant at the boundary, changing the disposition/settlement assumption can move the estimate by thousands of dollars.

Related reading

• Average closing costs in Alabama — Rule summary with authoritative citations
• Average closing costs in Alaska — Rule summary with authoritative citations
• Average closing costs in Arizona — Rule summary with authoritative citations