In re Estate of RC Willey
2016 UT 53
| Utah | 2016Background
- Don S. McBroom (grandson of R.C. Willey founder) moved under Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b) in 2014 to set aside a 1973 order approving a stock-purchase agreement and a 1975 order approving sale of his shares.
- The district court denied relief; the Child family intervened and KeyBank was allowed to participate. McBroom appealed.
- McBroom sought relief alleging fraud on the court, lack of notice, lack of jurisdiction (subject‑matter and personal), conflicts of interest, and that the earlier orders conflicted with a 1956 probate decree.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether McBroom’s motion properly invoked Rule 60(b)(3), (4), or (6), the timeliness requirements of Rule 60(c), and the merits of his void‑judgment claims.
- The court concluded McBroom’s claims fell under 60(b)(3) (fraud) and 60(b)(4) (void), not (b)(6); his (b)(3) claims were untimely, and his (b)(4) claims failed on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper classification under Rule 60(b) | McBroom argued relief under (b)(4) and (b)(6) (including fraud) | Defendants: fraud claims fall under (b)(3); void-judgment claims under (b)(4) | Court: claims are (b)(3) (fraud) and (b)(4) (void); not (b)(6) |
| Timeliness of fraud-based relief | McBroom: his fraud-on-the-court claim should be considered despite delay | Defendants: Rule 60(c) requires (b)(1)-(3) motions within 90 days; his motion was decades late | Court: (b)(3) claims untimely (filed ~40 years after orders); not considered |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(4) relief is time‑barred | McBroom: jurisdictional challenges may be raised at any time | Defendants: challenge should fail on the merits (and district court deemed them untimely) | Court: declined to resolve blanket timeliness question for (b)(4); reached merits and rejected McBroom’s (b)(4) claims |
| Merits of (b)(4) claims (notice, jurisdiction, conflict/self‑dealing) | McBroom: lacked notice, court lacked subject‑matter and personal jurisdiction, conflicts of interest and self‑dealing voided orders | Defendants: guardianship procedures, statutory notice to guardian, long‑arm jurisdiction, and timing/role of administrators defeated these claims | Court: rejected all (b)(4) grounds—statutes in effect at the time allowed guardian notice, McBroom was a minor in 1975, he petitioned for guardianship (consented to jurisdiction), and no voiding conflict/self‑dealing shown |
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) denial)
- Laub v. S. Cent. Utah Tel. Ass'n, 657 P.2d 1304 (Utah 1982) (Rule 60(b)(6) is residuary; cannot be used when other subsections apply)
- Judson v. Wheeler RV Las Vegas, L.L.C., 270 P.3d 456 (Utah 2012) (scope of Rule 60(b)(4) relief and meritorious-defense discussion)
- Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986) (no time limit where judgment void for fatally defective service of process)
- Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1975) (age-of-majority discussion referenced in analysis)