Judson v. Wheeler RV Las Vegas, L.L.C.
2012 UT 6
| Utah | 2012Background
- Judsons sued Wheeler RV Las Vegas for breach of contract and misrepresentation over a 2002 RV sale.
- Wheeler allegedly was a successor to a different dealership that sold the RV; issues about who is liable were raised.
- Judsons obtained a default judgment after Wheeler did not answer; judgment was entered December 4, 2007.
- Wheeler moved to set aside under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), asserting surprise/excusable neglect and challenging personal jurisdiction/sale party identity.
- District court denied relief and court of appeals affirmed for lack of a clear, specific meritorious-defense proffer; Wheeler timely appealed.
- Court of appeals did not resolve the surprise/excusable neglect predicate; the Utah Supreme Court reverses on the meritorious-defense issue and remands for that predicate to be resolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wheeler's motion is properly under 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(4) | Wheeler argues for 60(b)(1) with surprise/excusable neglect and meritorious defense | Judsons contend no separate meritorious defense not shown; no 60(b)(4) relief | Motion treated as 60(b)(1); meritorious defense sufficed on record |
| Whether Wheeler pled a meritorious defense with sufficient specificity | Wheeler alleged lack of liability as successor and lack of personal jurisdiction | Judsons failed to show specific, detailed defenses | Wheeler's allegations constitute a clear and specific proffer of defenses under 60(b) |
| Whether Wheeler's failure to file timely was due to surprise or excusable neglect | Record shows exchanges suggesting no surprise; potentially excusable neglect | Delay due to ongoing negotiations; lack of notice | Remand for determination of surprise/excusable neglect on remand |
| Whether lack of personal jurisdiction can justify relief from judgment under 60(b) | Personal-jurisdiction defense supports meritorious defense | Personal jurisdiction issues require merits-based resolution | Not independently considered as 60(b)(4); remand possible for merits |
| Whether the case should be remanded for further determination on the 60(b)(1) issue | Record insufficient to resolve surprise/excusable neglect | Record sufficient to decide defense merits | Remand appropriate to resolve surprise/excusable neglect |
Key Cases Cited
- Musselman v. State, 667 P.2d 1053 (Utah 1983) (meritorious defense requirement for 60(b) relief; gateway function)
- Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1988) (meritorious defense precondition; void judgments contrasted)
- Airkem Intermountain, Inc. v. Parker, 513 P.2d 429 (Utah 1973) (due diligence and excusable neglect standards)
- State v. Tripp, 2010 UT 9, 227 P.3d 1251 (Utah 2010) (standards of appellate review for rule 60(b) rulings)
- Gillett v. Price, 135 P.3d 861 (Utah 2006) (form matters in post-judgment relief; specificity requirement)
- Workers Compensation Fund v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 2011 UT 61, 266 P.3d 792 (Utah 2011) (discretion in construing motions under rule 60 or 59)
- Helgesen v. Inyangumia, 636 P.2d 1079 (Utah 1981) (settlement negotiations can toll deadlines; prudent conduct)