back to Defendants. And, both parties were entitled to be returned to their presale position to the extent possible. "The goal of rescission is to restore the status quo that existed prior to the parties' agreement." Amderson v. Doms, 2008 UT App 241, T6, 75 P.3d 925 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ong Int'l (U.S.A.) Inc. v. 11th Ave. Corp., 850 P.2d 447, 457 (Utah 1998). How or whether that goal can be accomplished is within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Ong Int'l, 850 P.2d at 457; Anderson, 2008 UT App 241, 1 6. Despite this deference, remand is appropriate where return of the parties to their prior positions is not accomplished to the extent possible under the circumstances. See Robert Langston, Ltd. v. McQuarrie, 741 P.2d 554, 558 (Utah Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). 142 Here, Defendants argue that they were not
holding that an order denying summary judgment is not appealable under  1292a3 even though it may have had important procedural consequences holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous holding that void order must exceed courts authority to act and not be merely erroneous holding trial courts order denying return of earnest money erroneous even though contract was rescinded holding that the trial courts conclusion regarding an easement of necessity was clearly erroneous