the resulting unfairness to the respondent if an argument or issue was first raised in the reply brief and the respondent had no opportunity to respond. See Brown, 853 P.2d at 854 n. 1; 5 Am.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 560. 124 However, fairness to the respondent is not a concern if it is the respondent who first raises an issue in the opposing brief. In fact, our appellate rules expressly direct an appellant to "answer[ ] any new matter set forth in the opposing brief." Utah R.App.P. 24(c). Therefore, if an appellant responds in the reply brief to a new issue raised by the appellee in its opposing brief, the issue is not waived. This is also generally the rule with other courts that have considered this issue. See, eg., Pachla v. Saunders Sys., Inc., 899 F.2d 496, 502 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); North v. Madison Area Ass'n for Retarded
holding that issue first raised in appellees brief and then answered in appellants reply brief was properly raised for review holding that an argument raised only in fact section of opening brief and in reply brief is not properly raised holding that issue raised for the first time in reply brief was waived holding issue first addressed in appellants reply brief was not waived because it was in response to argument first presented in appellees brief holding argument not raised in opening brief but raised for the first time in reply brief was waived