Bodell Construction Co. v. Robbins
334 P.3d 1004
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Bodell sued Robbins in 2003 for fraud-related claims arising from a series of loans and transactions.
- Defendants, including Robbins, were granted summary judgment in 2007; Bodell appealed and the Utah Supreme Court remanded in 2009.
- Robbins’s counsel withdrew ex parte after claiming communication with Robbins had ceased; Robbins provided last-known Park City address.
- Robbins did not appear, update his address, or obtain new counsel; filings were served at his Park City address; a default judgment was entered against Robbins in November 2011.
- Robbins moved under Rule 60(b) to set aside the default in February 2012; the district court denied, and Robbins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistake under rule 60(b)(1) | Bodell argues there was no clerical/mistake-type error justifying relief. | Robbins contends there were legal calculation mistakes in the default judgment that qualify as mistakes. | No clerical mistake; not a basis for relief. |
| Excusable neglect under rule 60(b)(1) | Bodell argues Robbins failed to show diligence or excusable neglect. | Robbins asserts he relied on mistaken belief Bodell dropped claims and that notice would have been provided by Bodell. | Robbins did not exercise due diligence; neglect not excusable. |
| Just cause under rule 60(b)(6) | Bodell maintains grounds fall within other rule 60(b) provisions, so 60(b)(6) is inapplicable. | Robbins reasserts the same grounds—unfit falls under 60(b)(6) as extra relief. | No independent just-cause justification; not favored. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Bybee, 2004 UT 92 (Utah Supreme Court (2004)) (defines 'mistake' under 60(b) as clerical or minor errors, not major legal misapprehensions)
- Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc. v. Melvin, 2000 UT App 110 (Utah Appellate Court (2000)) (limits 60(b) relief for purely legal errors, not incorrect application of law)
- Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81 (Utah Supreme Court (2006)) (discusses abuse of discretion and timeliness in 60(b) rulings)
- Jones v. Layton/Okland, 2009 UT 39 (Utah Supreme Court (2009)) (excusable neglect requires due diligence; lack thereof defeats relief)
- White Cap Constr., Ltd. v. Star, 2012 UT App 70 (Utah Appellate Court (2012)) (examines diligence and excusable neglect standards under 60(b))
- Mountain Constr., Inc. v. D. L. Construction, 2012 UT App 70 (Utah Appellate Court (2012)) (discusses necessity of factual findings when reviewing 60(b) defenses)
- Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 733 P.2d 130 (Utah (1987)) (defines excusable neglect as due diligence under similar circumstances)