Hinkle v. Jacobsen, 456 P.3d 738

Theresa Hinkle and Korey Jacobsen were married; a child was born during the marriage after Hinkle had a relationship with Jody Rhorer, making Jacobsen the child’s presumed father under the UUPA.
Rhorer, the biological father, intervened in Jacobsen and Hinkle’s divorce to assert paternity and sought genetic testing and a parentage determination.
The family‑court commissioner (adopting the court of appeals’ R.P. decision) found Rhorer lacked statutory standing to challenge a presumed father’s paternity, but permitted a custody evaluation to develop facts for a potential constitutional (as‑applied) challenge.
Rhorer completed the evaluation but did not timely brief an as‑applied constitutional argument; instead he sought limited time‑sharing or a dual‑fathering arrangement and otherwise failed to develop legal analysis.
The district court repeatedly concluded Rhorer abandoned his effort to rebut Jacobsen’s paternity and denied relief (including a Rule 60(b) attempt to raise an Equal Protection challenge).
The Utah Supreme Court held Rhorer waived any challenge to the court’s abandonment finding; a companion decision (Castro v. Lemus) interpreted the UUPA to grant standing to adjudicate paternity, mooting Rhorer’s preserved constitutional arguments but not rescuing his waived claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rhorer had statutory and/or constitutional standing to establish paternity under the UUPA	Rhorer argued he is the biological father and that statutory standing limits violate due process/equal protection as applied	Jacobsen argued Rhorer lacked statutory standing under UUPA and did not preserve any constitutional challenge	Court noted a companion decision interpreted UUPA to allow standing, mooting the constitutional question; but Rhorer failed to preserve/brief the constitutional claim in district court.
Whether Rhorer abandoned or waived his paternity claim by pursuing dual‑father/time‑sharing relief and failing to brief constitutional issues	Rhorer contended he never abandoned his claim to rebut Jacobsen’s paternity	Jacobsen argued the district court correctly found abandonment and waiver based on the record and briefing	Held: Rhorer waived challenge—district court’s factual/legal findings that he abandoned the paternity claim stand because Rhorer failed to challenge them on appeal.
Whether the district court abused discretion by denying Rule 60(b) relief to raise an Equal Protection claim late	Rhorer sought Rule 60(b) relief to advance an Equal Protection challenge	Jacobsen argued the new constitutional argument could and should have been raised earlier and was untimely	Held: Denial affirmed—Rhorer sought to present an entirely new argument that he had ample opportunity to raise earlier, so relief was unwarranted.

R.P. v. K.S.W., 320 P.3d 1084 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (interpreting UUPA standing and noting potential as‑applied constitutional concerns)
Alpine Homes, Inc. v. City of West Jordan, 424 P.3d 95 (Utah 2017) (standing is a mixed question of fact and law)
Kearns–Tribune Corp. v. Wilkinson, 946 P.2d 372 (Utah 1997) (standing primarily a question of law; scope of appellate review)
State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (issues raised first in a reply brief are waived)
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Env’t v. Exec. Dir. of the Utah Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 391 P.3d 148 (Utah 2016) (technical compliance with appeal procedures insufficient to preserve issues)
Allen v. Friel, 194 P.3d 903 (Utah 2008) (appellate courts will not search for unalleged errors)
Webster v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 290 P.3d 930 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (reply briefs are for answering new matters, not raising new arguments)