RHOSLC's Lisa Barlow Faces $410K Lawsuit, Former Friend Claims She Never Paid Back Vida Tequila Loans

Real Housewives of Salt Lake City star Lisa Barlow is battling a $410,842.36 lawsuit filed by longtime friend Bart Carlson in Utah’s 3rd District Court, alleging she never repaid loans dating back to 2010. The reality star’s motion to dismiss was denied in October 2024, with the judge ruling sufficient facts existed to proceed to trial. While three other lawsuits totaling over $500,000 have been dismissed, the Carlson case remains active and has dominated Season 6 storylines, where Lisa staged a dramatic “clarity lunch” featuring poster boards emblazoned with “DISMISSED” to defend herself against cast members’ questions about her mounting legal troubles.

What Is the Lisa Barlow Lawsuit?

Bart Carlson and Yukon Construction filed a lawsuit in June 2024 in Utah’s 3rd District Court claiming Lisa Barlow and her companies—Vida Tequila and Luxe Marketing—have not paid back $410,842.36 in loans dating back to 2010. Carlson is president of the Park City homebuilding company and was once Barlow’s business partner in a restaurant called The Silver Restaurant, which they sold in 2016.

The complaint alleges Lisa Barlow shared around May 2010 that she was “experiencing severe financial difficulties.” Carlson claims he loaned money to keep Vida Tequila and Luxe Marketing afloat at Barlow’s request, with no specified repayment timeline due to their longtime friendship.

The lawsuit has become a central storyline on Season 6 of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City, where cast members confronted Lisa about the legal claims during a dramatic lunch scene.

Who Are the Defendants?

Primary Defendant:

Lisa Barlow – Reality TV star and entrepreneur

Business Entities Named:

Vida Tequila – Barlow’s liquor brand
Luxe Marketing – Barlow’s party-planning and event business

Lisa’s Husband:

John Barlow – Co-owner of Vida Tequila, named in multiple related lawsuits

Lisa Barlow is known on RHOSLC as the self-proclaimed “Queen of Sundance,” often organizing high-profile events for the Sundance Film Festival and maintaining an affluent entrepreneurial image on the show.

Who Is Bart Carlson and What Are His Specific Allegations?

Bart Carlson is president of Yukon Construction, a Park City homebuilding company. Carlson and Lisa were former friends and business partners in a restaurant in Park City, Utah, called The Silver Restaurant, which they sold in 2016.

Breakdown of Alleged Loans:

Yukon Construction: $171,836.37 loaned between May 2010 and June 2011

Carlson personally: $87,100 loaned between September 2010 and October 2015

American Express card payments: $119,585.99 that Carlson paid on a card issued in Barlow’s name between 2011 and 2017

Range Rover payment: $32,320 paid in December 2015 toward the balance on Barlow’s personal Range Rover automobile loan

Total Claimed: $410,842.36

The Hidden Payments Allegation

The lawsuit claims some loans were made to an attorney for Barlow so Barlow’s husband, John — with whom she owns Vida Tequila — would not know about the tequila company’s financial problems. This allegation suggests Lisa wanted to conceal Vida Tequila’s financial difficulties from her husband and business partner.

Carlson opened an American Express account for Barlow and paid $119,585 that was charged on it between 2011 and 2017, claiming he did this to “more precisely track the expenses Barlow and Vida Tequila incurred.”

Carlson’s Repayment Requests

When Carlson asked Barlow to repay the loans, she brushed the request aside with a December 2019 text message that had the all-caps word “OVERWHELMED” and a “palm-face” emoji.

According to the complaint, Carlson made repeated requests for repayment, explaining he was no longer in a financial position to carry that much money. The lawsuit alleges Barlow continued to delay or dismiss these requests for years.

What Are Lisa Barlow’s Defenses?

The “Fanciful Tale” Defense

“Carlson has concocted a fanciful tale in which he purports to have bankrolled Barlow and her companies with an open line of credit that had no terms or conditions and no repayment date,” Barlow’s motion to dismiss says.

Lisa’s attorneys argue there is no proof of any enforceable contract between Barlow and Carlson, and therefore no proof she owes him anything.

No Enforceable Contract

“There does not appear to be any provision requiring Carlson to loan money, no procedure by which loans are requested, agreed to, processed, documented or paid back. Indeed, there are no facts alleged where Barlow even specifically asks Carlson for money, the reasons for any loans or the recipient of any loan and no facts about Carlson agreeing to any loans,” the motion says.

Her attorneys argue the alleged agreement is far too vague to be legally enforced under Utah contract law.

Statute of Limitations Defense

The statute of limitations on an “oral contract,” which Barlow’s attorneys claim is the only such agreement Carlson might be able to prove, is four years under Utah law.

Carlson alleges he first asked about payment in December 2019. If the clock started with Carlson’s first request for payment, he would have until December 2023 to file a complaint. Carlson didn’t file until June 20, 2024, making the suit untimely according to Barlow’s defense.

Good Faith Defense

“All acts or omissions of Barlow were undertaken in good faith, without malice or recklessness, and were fully justified and reasonable under the circumstance,” her legal answer states.

Her lawyer added, “[Bart’s] claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the contributory negligence of [Bart].” This suggests Lisa’s team argues Carlson shares responsibility for any alleged mismanagement of their financial arrangements.

What Laws Apply to This Case?

Utah Contract Law

The case centers on whether an enforceable contract existed between Carlson and Barlow requiring repayment of alleged loans. Under Utah law, for a contract to be enforceable, it must have:

Offer and Acceptance: Clear agreement on terms
Consideration: Exchange of value between parties
Definite Terms: Specific provisions regarding payment amounts, timing, and conditions
Mutual Intent: Both parties must intend to be legally bound

Lisa’s attorneys argue Carlson’s complaint fails to establish these elements, particularly definite terms regarding repayment schedules or conditions.

Utah Statute of Limitations

Utah Code § 78B-2-309 establishes a four-year statute of limitations for actions based on oral contracts. This means a plaintiff must file suit within four years of when the cause of action accrues—typically when a breach occurs or when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the breach.

Lisa’s defense argues that if Carlson first requested repayment in December 2019, he had until December 2023 to file suit. Filing in June 2024 would make the claims time-barred.

Burden of Proof in Civil Cases

In Utah civil litigation, plaintiffs must prove their claims by a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning more likely than not. Carlson must demonstrate:

A contract existed (whether oral or implied)
The specific terms of that contract
Lisa breached those terms
Carlson suffered damages as a result

Unjust Enrichment as Alternative Theory

Even without a formal contract, plaintiffs can sometimes recover under unjust enrichment theory if they can prove:

A benefit was conferred on the defendant
The defendant appreciated or knew of the benefit
The defendant accepted or retained the benefit under circumstances making it inequitable to do so without payment

Text messages between Carlson and Barlow acknowledging debts could potentially support an unjust enrichment claim even if no formal contract existed.

Current Case Status and Recent Rulings

Motion to Dismiss Denied – October 2024

In October, “the judge denied Lisa’s plea to dismiss the case.” They ruled, “Bart had pled sufficient facts to withstand dismissal of his case.”

This critical ruling means the case will proceed through discovery and potentially to trial. The judge found Carlson’s complaint contained enough factual allegations to survive dismissal at this early stage.

What the Denial Means

The October 2024 denial of Lisa’s motion to dismiss represents a significant procedural setback. It means:

The case advances to the discovery phase
Both parties will exchange documents, financial records, and communications
Depositions of Lisa, John Barlow, Bart Carlson, and potentially others will occur
The case could proceed to trial unless settled

In October 2024, a judge denied Barlow’s motion to dismiss Carlson’s case, ruling that sufficient facts were pled to proceed with litigation.

Lisa’s Official Answer to the Court

After the motion to dismiss was denied, Lisa’s legal team filed an official answer to Carlson’s complaint. The answer:

Denies owing Carlson any money
Asserts all her actions were in good faith
Claims Carlson’s allegations are barred by the statute of limitations
Argues the claims are based on unenforceable or invalid agreements
Demands the case be dismissed and her legal fees paid by Carlson

Current Procedural Posture

As of December 2024, the case remains in active litigation. The parties are likely engaged in:

Discovery: Exchanging financial documents, bank records, text messages, and emails
Initial Disclosures: Required disclosures of witnesses and evidence each party intends to use
Potential Mediation: Courts often require mediation before trial
Motion Practice: Additional motions may be filed as discovery reveals new information

Season 6 “Clarity Lunch” Drama

The poster boards, which feature blown-up images of court documents, are displayed all around the lunch table, greeting cast members as they arrive. A smaller version is printed on the menus.

However, cast member Bronwyn Newport pointed out on the show that one lawsuit—the Carlson case—remains active despite Lisa’s “DISMISSED” poster presentation.

Other Lawsuits Against Lisa Barlow and Vida Tequila

McGeary Family Trust Lawsuit – Dismissed August 2024

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Salt Lake County’s 3rd District Court, Georgia finance man William McGeary claims Barlow and her husband, John, owe him and his trust $400,000.

The McGeary Family Trust signed off on a $400,000 loan, with 5% interest, in December 2022, to be paid back a year later, according to the complaint.

Key Allegations:

John Barlow told McGeary’s son Vida Tequila needed cash for raw materials
The loan was due December 27, 2023
McGeary claimed the Barlows didn’t actually spend the money on raw materials
The complaint alleged securities fraud

Outcome: Lisa Barlow tells TMZ … her lawyers have notified her that this lawsuit was dismissed. The case was filed August 13, 2024, and dismissed August 15, 2024—just two days later—without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled.

Financial Services Corporation Lawsuit – May 2023

In the first lawsuit, The Financial Services Corporation sued Vida Tequila and John in May for $105,954.16. This case involved allegations of an unpaid loan to Vida Tequila and John Barlow.

The current status of this lawsuit is unclear from available court records, but multiple sources indicate it may have been dismissed or settled.

Weber County Lawsuit – Dismissed 2020

In another lawsuit filed in April 2020, a Weber County man accused the Barlows and Vida Tequila of owing him just over $27,000. The man filed a dismissal notice a month later.

Utah State Tax Commission Liens – 2021

In 2021, the Utah State Tax Commission filed two judgments for tax liens against the Barlows, one in July for $12,029.97, and the other in December for $4,114.96. Both judgments were withdrawn a month after they were filed.

Total Alleged Debts

If all allegations in the various lawsuits were accurate, Lisa Barlow and her companies would face over $900,000 in claimed debts. However, Lisa has consistently denied all wrongdoing and emphasized she pays her bills on time.

Legal Precedents in Similar Contract Disputes

Oral Contract Enforceability in Utah

Utah courts have consistently held that oral contracts can be legally enforceable if the essential terms are sufficiently definite and the parties intended to be bound. However, proving the existence and terms of an oral agreement presents significant evidentiary challenges.

Key Precedents:

Parties must demonstrate mutual assent to specific terms
Vague or indefinite agreements typically fail
Text messages and emails can serve as evidence of oral agreements
The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the contract existed

Statute of Limitations in Loan Cases

Utah courts strictly enforce the four-year statute of limitations for oral contract claims. The clock typically starts when:

The repayment date passes (if one was specified)
The first demand for payment is made
The borrower refuses to repay

Friend and Family Loan Disputes

Courts recognize that loans between friends and family members often lack formal documentation and strict terms. However, this informality cuts both ways:

For Plaintiffs: Courts may infer contract terms from conduct and partial performance
For Defendants: Lack of documentation makes proving specific terms difficult

Text Message Evidence

Modern contract litigation increasingly involves text messages as evidence. Utah courts generally admit text messages as evidence if properly authenticated, but their interpretation depends on:

Context of the conversation
Whether they show clear agreement on specific terms
Whether they demonstrate acknowledgment of debt

In Carlson’s case, his complaint references text messages from 2019-2022 where Lisa seemingly acknowledged debts. Whether these texts prove an enforceable contract remains a key dispute.

What This Means for Lisa Barlow

Potential Financial Liability

If Carlson prevails at trial, Lisa could face:

Judgment of $410,842.36: The full amount claimed plus potential interest
Attorney’s Fees: Depending on the outcome and judge’s discretion
Court Costs: Filing fees and other litigation expenses
Prejudgment Interest: Additional interest accrued from when payment was due

Reputational Impact

Even if Lisa ultimately wins the case, the ongoing litigation affects:

Her public image as a successful businesswoman
The Vida Tequila and Luxe Marketing brands
Her standing with RHOSLC fans and producers
Future business relationships and financing opportunities

Discovery Risks

The discovery process could expose:

Detailed financial records of Vida Tequila and Luxe Marketing
Personal financial information about Lisa and John Barlow
Business communications and text messages
Information about other business relationships

Reality TV stars often face heightened scrutiny when private financial matters become public through litigation.

Comparison to Jen Shah

Notoriously, original cast member Jen Shah was sentenced last year to 6½ years in federal prison, after pleading guilty to her role in a nationwide telemarketing fraud scheme.

Lisa’s situation differs fundamentally from Jen Shah’s:

Civil vs. Criminal: Lisa faces civil debt disputes, not criminal fraud charges
No Federal Prosecution: There are no federal investigations or criminal charges
Contract Disputes: These are private business disagreements, not fraud schemes

Lisa has repeatedly clarified these are civil lawsuits, not criminal charges. She emphasized on WWHL: “I’ve never done anything criminal”.

Season 6 Impact

The lawsuits have become central to Season 6 storylines, with:

Cast members questioning Lisa’s financial stability
Dramatic confrontations about the legal matters
Lisa’s defensive response featuring “DISMISSED” posters
Speculation about whether legal troubles affect her participation in filming

What Lisa Barlow Says About the Lawsuit

Initial Statement When Lawsuit Filed

“Bart Carlson was once a business partner in a restaurant in Park City and, I thought, a friend. I am deeply saddened that he has decided nine years after our restaurant business ceased to claim that I owe him money,” Barlow said in a statement.

“To be very clear, the claim that I owe Bart or his company money is untrue. I pay my bills and obligations and I always have. In addition, Bart has no interest in Luxe Marketing or Vida Tequila and did not invest in either business. I look forward to the truth coming out and I intend to hold Bart fully accountable for any damage this personal attack may cause me or my businesses.”

Lisa’s Consistent Position

Throughout multiple lawsuits, Lisa has maintained:

She pays all her bills and financial obligations on time
The claims against her are untrue or exaggerated
She will hold plaintiffs accountable for damage to her reputation and businesses
These are civil business disputes, not criminal matters

Watch What Happens Live Confirmation

On October 28, 2025, Real Housewives of Salt Lake City star Lisa Barlow confirmed to Andy Cohen on Watch What Happens Live that three of the four lawsuits against her have been dismissed, clarifying they are civil matters—not criminal charges.

During the appearance, Lisa emphasized the distinction between civil debt disputes and criminal charges, addressing fan confusion about the nature of the legal matters.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Lisa Barlow Lawsuit

Q: What is the current status of the Lisa Barlow lawsuit?

One major lawsuit filed by longtime friend Bart Carlson seeking $410,842.36 in allegedly unpaid loans remains active in Utah’s 3rd District Court. The judge denied Lisa’s motion to dismiss in October 2024, meaning the case will proceed through discovery and potentially to trial. Three other lawsuits have been dismissed.

Q: How much money does Lisa Barlow allegedly owe?

The active Carlson lawsuit claims $410,842.36 in unpaid loans from 2010-2018. Previous dismissed lawsuits claimed an additional $400,000 (McGeary), $105,954.16 (Financial Services Corporation), and $27,000 (Weber County plaintiff). If all claims were accurate, the total would exceed $900,000, though Lisa denies owing any money.

Q: Is Lisa Barlow facing criminal charges?

No. Lisa has repeatedly clarified these are civil lawsuits involving alleged contract disputes and debt claims, not criminal charges. There are no federal investigations or criminal prosecutions. This fundamentally differs from former castmate Jen Shah’s federal fraud case.

Q: What is Lisa Barlow’s defense in the lawsuit?

Lisa’s attorneys argue: (1) no enforceable contract existed between her and Carlson, (2) the alleged agreement is too vague to be legally binding, (3) Carlson’s claims are barred by Utah’s four-year statute of limitations because he filed too late, and (4) all of Lisa’s actions were undertaken in good faith without wrongdoing.

Q: What does the motion to dismiss denial mean?

The October 2024 denial means the judge found Carlson’s complaint contained sufficient factual allegations to proceed past the initial dismissal stage. The case will now advance to discovery, where both parties exchange documents and evidence, and potentially proceed to trial unless settled. It does not mean Lisa is liable—only that the case can move forward.

Q: What happened to the other lawsuits against Lisa Barlow?

Three other lawsuits have been dismissed: (1) William McGeary’s $400,000 lawsuit filed in August 2024 was dismissed two days later without prejudice, (2) a Weber County man’s $27,000 claim was dismissed in 2020, and (3) two 2021 Utah State Tax Commission liens totaling approximately $16,000 were withdrawn. The status of Financial Services Corporation’s $105,954.16 lawsuit from May 2023 is unclear but appears resolved.

Q: How has the lawsuit affected RHOSLC Season 6?

The lawsuit has dominated RHOSLC Season 6, where Barlow staged a dramatic “clarity lunch” using poster boards emblazoned with “DISMISSED” to address cast members’ questions about her legal troubles. Cast members Bronwyn Newport and Angie Katsanevas have raised questions about Lisa’s legal matters, creating tension and making the lawsuits a central storyline. Lisa’s absence from much of the first episode became a topic of discussion.

Q: Can the dismissed lawsuits be refiled?

The McGeary lawsuit was dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning it legally can be refiled. However, there’s no indication McGeary plans to do so. Lawsuits dismissed “with prejudice” cannot be refiled. The quick dismissal of the McGeary case suggests it may have been resolved through settlement or the plaintiff chose not to pursue it.

Q: What happens next in the Bart Carlson lawsuit?

The case proceeds through discovery, where both parties exchange financial documents, bank records, text messages, and other evidence. Depositions of key witnesses including Lisa, John Barlow, and Bart Carlson will likely occur. The parties may attempt mediation or settlement negotiations. If no settlement is reached, the case could proceed to trial, potentially in 2025.

Disclaimer: This article provides information about the Lisa Barlow lawsuit based on publicly available court documents and media reports. It should not be considered legal advice. The lawsuit involves disputed allegations that have not been proven in court. If you have questions about contract law, debt disputes, or Utah civil litigation, consult with a qualified attorney.

Last Updated: December 2024

Sources: Salt Lake Tribune, TMZ, Reality Blurb, In Touch Weekly, Utah 3rd District Court Records

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah