In re B.O. (M.C. & C.C v. State & D.O)
2015 UT App 70
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Grandparents appeal multiple post-judgment juvenile-court orders in a petition seeking relief under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 59.
- The court must determine its appellate jurisdiction given the timing of notices of appeal and tolling motions.
- The December 13, 2013 order resolved Grandparents’ first Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.
- Grandparents filed subsequent Rule 60(b) and related motions (May 13, 2014; May 30, 2014) challenging earlier proceedings, including recording errors.
- The panel concludes several orders were final and appealable only if timely appealed; many issues were not timely filed, compromising jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review late orders | Grandparents seek review of 2013 orders and related ruling. | Appeals must be filed timely; late notices deprive jurisdiction. | Lack of jurisdiction over those orders. |
| Appealability of the May 13, 2014 order | Relief motion preserved appeal of underlying issues. | Untimely Rule 60(b) motion cannot toll appeal time. | Lack of jurisdiction over May 13, 2014 order issues. |
| Effect of untimely Rule 52/59 tolling | Motion filed within time may toll appeal. | Motion filed after 14 days tolling period, ineffective. | No tolling; deadlines not extended. |
| Scope of Rule 60(b) relief | Rule 60(b) motions address merits of underlying judgment. | Rule 60(b) motions are narrow and procedural; issues must be in direct appeal. | Issues should have been raised on direct appeal; affirmed. |
| Finality and direct-appeal avenues | Recording errors and reconstruction of record are significant merits. | Such issues were previously adjudicated and should be pursued by direct appeal. | Issues previously adjudicated; direct appeal preferred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schettler, 768 P.2d 950 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (Rule 60(b) finality and appealability)
- Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 13 P.3d 616 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (timeliness of appeals governs jurisdiction)
- Burgers v. Maiben, 652 P.2d 1320 (Utah 1982) (untimely motion for new trial does not toll appeal time)
- Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc. v. Melvin, 2 P.3d 451 (Utah App. 2000) (Rule 60(b) motions are narrow and not substitutes for untimely appeals)
- Crestwood Cove Apts. Bus. Trust v. Turner, 164 P.3d 1247 (Utah 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for rule 59 relief)