511 P.3d 1174
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- Todd and Rebecca Horne married in 2014 and have one child; Rebecca (an attorney) alleged Todd sexually assaulted her while she was sleeping and filed for divorce in September 2019.
- Todd contends Rebecca threatened to report him criminally if he contested her divorce filings; he hired counsel on October 15, 2019, Rebecca filed a police report that day, and Todd soon discharged his attorney and signed Rebecca’s settlement; Rebecca later asked police to close the case and the decree was entered in November 2019.
- In June 2020 Todd moved to set aside the stipulated divorce decree under Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), claiming duress/extortion induced him to sign and the decree’s custody and property terms were grossly unjust.
- The district court characterized Todd’s motion as substantively a Rule 60(b)(3) fraud/misconduct claim (not 60(b)(6)), which is subject to a 90‑day filing limit, and denied relief as untimely.
- On appeal Todd argued the court should have considered an independent 60(b)(6) ground: the district court failed to independently assess fairness/best interests before adopting the stipulation. The appellate court held that argument was not preserved and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to set aside should be treated under Rule 60(b)(6) (catch‑all) or 60(b)(3) (fraud/misconduct), affecting timeliness | Todd: motion invoked 60(b)(6) for duress/extortion and unfair decree | Rebecca: substance is fraud/misconduct under 60(b)(3); 90‑day limit applies and motion is untimely | Court: substance fits 60(b)(3); motion untimely and denied |
| Whether the district court’s alleged failure to independently assess the stipulation’s fairness/best interests is an independent 60(b)(6) ground and was preserved | Todd (on appeal): district court failed to fulfill statutory duty to assess best interests and fairness, constituting an independent basis for 60(b)(6) relief | Rebecca: that claim was not raised below and thus unpreserved | Court: claim not preserved (not presented below with required specificity/evidence/authority); appellate review declined |
Key Cases Cited
- Menzies v. Galetka, 150 P.3d 480 (Utah 2006) (Rule 60(b)(6) is a residuary clause and cannot be used where other subsections apply; use sparingly)
- Thompson v. Wardley Corp., 382 P.3d 682 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (may not repurpose claims to evade time limits in other Rule 60(b) subsections)
- Yknot Global Ltd. v. Stellia Ltd., 379 P.3d 36 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (classification of a Rule 60(b) motion is a question of law reviewed for correctness)
- Wolferts v. Wolferts, 315 P.3d 448 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (issue preservation requires timely, specific presentation with evidence and legal authority)
- Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (mere mention of an issue without supporting evidence or authority does not preserve it)