Hafen v. Scholes, 335 P.3d 396

Hafen appeals a trial court order modifying a divorce decree following a motion to reconsider filed by Scholes.
Gillett v. Price held postfinal-judgment motions to reconsider are not recognized in Utah law, limiting that rule to post-final judgments.
The motion to reconsider in Hafen’s case was filed after findings of fact and conclusions of law but before the final order modifying the divorce decree.
The trial court allowed Scholes’s motion to reconsider, acting before the final judgment, and thus retained authority to reconsider.
Hafen argued the alimony modification was outside the scope of the motion to reconsider, and that the record was incomplete for review.
The court affirmed, concluding the alimony issue was not properly preserved for appeal and the record on appeal was inadequate to determine the alimony question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the reconsideration ruling was proper	Hafen contends reconsideration post-Gillett was improper.	Scholes argues the court may reconsider before final judgment.	Trial court acted within its discretion to reconsider before final judgment.
Whether alimony modification was properly preserved and reviewable	Hafen asserts alimony modification should be reconsidered and reviewed.	Scholes maintains preservation and record issues prevent review.	Alimony issue not preserved; record inadequate; not reviewable.

Gillett v. Price, 2006 UT 24 (Utah Supreme Court (2006)) (limits postfinal-judgment reconsideration; not applicable to nonfinal orders)
IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 2008 UT 73 (Utah Supreme Court (2008)) (pre-final-judgment reconsideration permitted; court may revisit prior decisions)
438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72 (Utah Supreme Court (2004)) (waiver rule: issues not raised in trial court are generally deemed waived)
State v. Pritchett, 2003 UT 24 (Utah Supreme Court (2003)) (preservation and record considerations in appellate review)