In re Estate of RC Willey
2016 UT 53
Utah2016Background
- Don S. McBroom (grandson of Rufus C. Willey) moved under Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b) in 2014 to set aside two district-court orders from 1973 and 1975 that approved (1) a 1973 stock-purchase agreement and (2) the 1975 sale of McBroom’s stock in R.C. Willey & Son.
- McBroom alleged fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction (subject‑matter and personal), defective notice, conflicted fiduciaries/self‑dealing, and asserted the 1973/1975 orders were void or conflicted with an earlier 1956 probate decree.
- The Second District denied McBroom’s motion, granted in part the Child family’s intervention, and permitted KeyBank to participate; McBroom appealed.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether McBroom’s claims properly fell under Rule 60(b)(3), (4), or (6); whether claims under (b)(3) were timely; and the merits of his (b)(4) voidness challenges.
- Court held McBroom’s motion properly invoked paragraphs (b)(3) (fraud) and (b)(4) (judgment void), not (b)(6); his (b)(3) claims were untimely (filed decades after the 90‑day limit); and all (b)(4) challenges failed on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper classification of Rule 60(b) grounds | McBroom claimed relief under (b)(4) and (b)(6) (and asserted fraud) | Court/defendants argued fraud belongs to (b)(3); voidness to (b)(4); (b)(6) is residual | Court: fraud claims fall under (b)(3); claims asserting a void judgment fall under (b)(4); (b)(6) inapplicable |
| Timeliness of fraud allegations (Rule 60(b)(3)) | McBroom argued fraud-on-the-court claims warranted relief despite delay | Defendants and court argued (b)(3) motions must be filed within 90 days under Rule 60(c) or by independent action | Held: McBroom filed ~40 years late; (b)(3) claims untimely and not considered |
| Whether McBroom’s filings constituted an independent action under Rule 60(d) | McBroom contended his papers were an independent action to set aside orders for fraud on the court | Court/defendants: independent action requires separate complaint and service; he filed a 60(b) motion | Held: Not an independent action; treated as (b)(3) motion and therefore subject to timeliness rules |
| Merits of (b)(4) voidness challenges: jurisdiction, notice, and conflicts/self‑dealing | McBroom claimed lack of subject‑matter and personal jurisdiction, defective notice, conflict of interest, and that orders conflicted with 1956 probate decree | Defendants argued statutory scheme at the time allowed guardian notice, McBroom (and mother) waived or consented, guardian acted for him, long‑arm/property jurisdiction applied, and conflicts statutes cited were not yet effective | Held: (b)(4) claims fail on merits — court had subject‑matter and personal jurisdiction; notice to guardian sufficed; sale of contingent remainder was valid; conflict/self‑dealing argument inapplicable (statute not retroactive) |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Water Dist. of Salt Lake & Sandy v. Sorf, 304 P.3d 824 (Utah 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for Rule 60(b) denials)
- Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986) (time limits of Rule 60 may not apply where judgment void for fatally defective service)
- Woody v. Rhodes, 461 P.2d 465 (Utah 1969) (similarly recognizing exceptions to time limits for void judgments based on defective service)
- Judson v. Wheeler RV Las Vegas, L.L.C., 270 P.3d 456 (Utah 2012) (Rule 60(b)(4) may succeed on showing judgment is void without separate meritorious defense)
- Laub v. S. Cent. Utah Tel. Ass’n, 657 P.2d 1304 (Utah 1982) (Rule 60(b)(6) is residuary and unavailable when other subsections apply)
- In re Estate of Myers, 214 P.3d 115 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (future interests can be transferred/sold)
- Memmott v. Bosh, 520 P.2d 1342 (Utah 1974) (guardian duties terminate when ward attains majority)