Gardiner v. Vanderwerff, 2014 UT 56

Background

Janetta Gardiner (petitioner) filed for a judicial declaration of an unsolemnized (common-law) marriage with the late Kenneth Vanderwerff about a month after his death; Vanderwerff had no children.
William Francis, the decedent’s step-grandson, had been appointed special administrator of the estate and filed a probate action; he later moved to intervene in the marriage action and objected to the petition.
Within 120 days of the marriage petition, Francis stipulated to his removal and Gardiner’s appointment as personal representative of the estate; Gardiner did not serve the estate before obtaining that appointment.
The district court held a marriage hearing without formally notifying family members and granted the declaration. Over a year later four cousins moved to set aside the judgment and to intervene; the court granted limited intervention, set aside the declaration under Rule 60(b), and then sua sponte dismissed the marriage action under Rule 4(b)(i) for alleged failure to serve process.
On appeal the Utah Supreme Court held the district court erred: it improperly granted postjudgment intervention without findings, wrongly set aside the marriage decree (procedural and legal error), and improperly dismissed the action without giving Gardiner notice or an opportunity to respond because she had waived service as personal representative.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction over Gardiner’s timely appeal (extension under R. App. P. 4(e))	Gardiner argued the court properly found good cause (advanced age, complexity) to extend appeal time	Cousins argued extension was an abuse of discretion and deprived court of jurisdiction	Court held extension was within broad equitable discretion; appellate jurisdiction exists
Whether the Cousins’ motion to intervene (postjudgment) was properly granted under R. 24(a)	Gardiner: intervention untimely (filed >1 year after judgment) and court failed to analyze Rule 24(a) factors	Cousins: as potential heirs they have interest and were entitled to challenge service and the decree	Court reversed grant of intervention for failure to make Rule 24(a) findings (especially timeliness); remanded for full analysis if they refile
Whether the district court properly set aside the marriage decree under Rule 60(b)	Gardiner: Rule 60(b) motion was not properly submitted, she had no chance to brief merits, and service was valid/waived	Cousins (and court below): judgment obtained without proper notice to estate; surprise/fraud justify relief	Court held the Rule 60(b) order was procedurally improper (motion not submitted; no chance to oppose) and premised on erroneous legal conclusion about service; reversal and reinstatement of decree
Whether dismissal under R. 4(b)(i) for failure to serve was proper	Gardiner: court could not dismiss sua sponte without notice; service on estate was waived because she was appointed personal representative within 120 days	Court/cousins: petition required service on decedent’s estate and family lacked notice; dismissal appropriate for lack of timely service	Court held court may raise service timeliness sua sponte but may not dismiss without notice and opportunity to respond; here dismissal was improper because Gardiner had waived service as personal representative

Key Cases Cited

Supernova Media, Inc. v. Pia Anderson Dorius Reynard & Moss, LLC, 297 P.3d 599 (Utah 2013) (clarifies standards and review for motions to intervene)
Berneau v. Martino, 223 P.3d 1128 (Utah 2009) (personal jurisdiction over deceased requires appointment of personal representative)
Fisher v. Bybee, 104 P.3d 1198 (Utah 2004) (Rule 60(b) rulings are reviewed for correctness as to legal conclusions)
Jenner v. Real Estate Servs., 659 P.2d 1072 (Utah 1983) (postjudgment intervention disfavored; timeliness critical)
Utah Down Syndrome Found., Inc. v. Utah Down Syndrome Ass’n, 293 P.3d 241 (Utah 2012) (appellate jurisdiction questions and timeliness of appeals)