509 P.3d 214
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- Mother (B.S.) had full physical custody of two children she shares with Father (J.F.); Mother’s husband (S.S., Stepfather) petitioned to adopt the children and to terminate Father’s parental rights.
- Two-day bench trial concluded December 11, 2018; the court orally denied the petition, announced findings of fact and conclusions of law, and stated it did not intend to issue written findings but invited parties to submit proposed findings.
- A signed minute entry reflecting the court’s ruling was recorded shortly after the oral ruling; neither party timely submitted a separate judgment under Utah R. Civ. P. 58A(c).
- Because no separate judgment was entered, Utah R. Civ. P. 58A(e)(2)(B) deemed judgment entered 150 days after the clerk recorded the decision (May 2019), starting the appeal clock.
- The district court later signed amended written findings and an order on June 9, 2020; Mother and Stepfather filed a notice of appeal June 22, 2020.
- Father moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction; the court of appeals agreed judgment was deemed entered in May 2019 and dismissed the untimely appeal, and it refused to reach Mother/Stepfather’s unpreserved constitutional challenge to Rule 58A because they failed to show exceptional circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Mother/Stepfather’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal under Utah R. Civ. P. 58A | June 9, 2020 signed order was the separate judgment and restart of appeal period; notice of appeal timely | Because no separate judgment was entered after the Dec. 11, 2018 oral ruling, judgment was deemed entered 150 days after the clerk recorded the minute entry (May 2019); appeal filed June 22, 2020 was untimely | Held for Father: 58A(e)(2)(B) applied; judgment deemed entered May 2019; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Constitutionality of Rule 58A (facial and as-applied) — notice issue | Rule 58A is unconstitutional because it fails to provide adequate notice to parties when an order becomes final for appeal | Issue not preserved; parties had procedural means to obtain or confirm entry date; Rule 58A complies with service rules | Not reached on merits: appellant failed to preserve and did not show exceptional circumstances permitting review |
| Availability of preservation exceptions (plain error / exceptional circumstances) | Exceptional circumstances apply because the constitutional issue only became relevant on appeal; plain error applies | No rare procedural anomaly shown; appellants had opportunities (prepare proposed judgment, check docket, contact clerk) and cannot sleep on rights | Exceptions rejected: appellants did not carry burden to show plain error or exceptional circumstances; therefore constitutional claim not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Snow Christensen & Martineau, 467 P.3d 833 (Utah 2020) (separate written judgment signed and docketed signals appeal/post-judgment clock)
- Central Utah Water Conservancy Dist. v. King, 297 P.3d 619 (Utah 2013) (explained need for rule limiting hanging appeals)
- Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 13 P.3d 616 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (appeal deadlines must be adhered to; promotes finality)
- Bradbury v. Valencia, 5 P.3d 649 (Utah 2000) (where appeal is not properly taken, appellate court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss)
- State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (standards for preservation exceptions including exceptional circumstances)
- Baumann v. Kroger Co., 416 P.3d 512 (Utah 2017) (appellant must analyze and apply preservation-exception standards to obtain review of unpreserved issues)