Kartchner v. Kartchner, 334 P.3d 1

Husband sought divorce from Wife after 1998 separation; the 2006 Stipulation provided for alimony and that the marital home be retained by Wife; Husband continued to pay alimony under prior arrangements despite later reconciliation.
The parties reconciled in August 2006; the 2006 Stipulation remained in file but divorce proceedings were not finalized.
In 2009 Wife began negotiations while having submitted to the court proposed findings and a decree based on the 2006 Stipulation, which concealed that the documents had been submitted for signature.
Wife’s attorney filed the final documents with the court in May 2009 and July 2009, including outdated and inaccurate statements such as Wife not being gainfully employed.
The 2009 Decree was entered on July 28, 2009; Husband later learned of the divorce and disputed alimony terms after remarrying; in 2011 he filed a fraud-upon-the-court action seeking reformation and damages.
The trial court held that the 2009 Decree was procured by fraud and reformed the alimony and life-insurance provisions; Wife appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b) barred independent fraud action	Kartchner argues failure to file Rule 60(b) motion does not bar independent action	Kartchner contends lapse in Rule 60(b) precludes independent action	Rule 60(b) does not bar independent fraud action
Whether fraud upon the court required substantive unconscionability	Husband seeks relief for fraud even without substantive unconscionability	Wife says unconscionability must be shown in the decree	Fraud upon the court does not require substantive unconscionability
Whether Lund v. Lund voided the 2006 Stipulation	Stipulation could not serve as basis for 2009 Decree after reconciliation	Stipulation remained relevant despite reconciliation	2006 Stipulation void under Lund; could not ground 2009 Decree
Whether the life-insurance provision could be reformed	Husband seeks relief from inequitable life-insurance terms	Wife argues unclean hands and full relief denied	Court properly reformed life-insurance provision and other terms within equitable discretion

St. Pierre v. Edmonds, 645 P.2d 615 (Utah 1982) (independent action for fraud upon the court preserved; laches considerations apply)
Lund v. Lund, 315 P.2d 856 (Utah 1957) (condonation and forgiveness of irreconcilable differences voids grounds for divorce decree)
Bayles v. Bayles, 981 P.2d 403 (Utah App. 1999) (independent action for fraud may proceed despite Rule 60(b) time limits)
Kelley v. Kelley, 9 P.3d 171 (Utah App. 2000) (fraud upon the court definitions and examples; deference to trial court's factual findings)
Karren v. Karren, 69 P. 465 (Utah 1902) (fraud upon the court in divorce proceedings; public policy against concealment)
Maertz v. Maertz, 827 P.2d 259 (Utah 1992) (equitable principles; laches considerations)
Parduhn v. Bennett, 2005 UT 22; 112 P.3d 495 (Utah 2005) (unclean hands doctrine; equitable relief considerations)
Park v. Jameson, 364 P.2d 1 (Utah 1961) (equitable relief standards in divorce-related disputes)
In re Adoption of S.L.F., 27 P.3d 583 (Utah App. 2001) (equitable relief principles; timeliness and laches)