391 P.3d 171
Utah2016Background
- Don 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 stock.
- District court denied the Rule 60(b) motion and a separate fraud-on-the-court claim; the Child family intervened and KeyBank was permitted to participate; McBroom appealed.
- McBroom asserted the orders were void for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, conflicts with a 1956 probate decree, guardian/administrator conflicts of interest, and fraud on the court.
- The Supreme Court treated McBroom’s claims as arising under Rule 60(b)(3) (fraud/misconduct) and 60(b)(4) (void judgment), not under the residuary 60(b)(6).
- Court held McBroom’s 60(b)(3) fraud claims were untimely (filed ~40 years after the orders; 60(c) requires motions under (1)-(3) within 90 days) and rejected all 60(b)(4) jurisdictional and conflict-of-interest claims on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper Rule-60 classification | McBroom framed relief under (b)(4) and (b)(6) (voidness and residuary relief) | Defendants/district court: fraud-on-court claims fall under (b)(3); voidness under (b)(4) | Court: claims properly fall under (b)(3) (fraud) and (b)(4) (void); not (b)(6) |
| Timeliness of fraud (60(b)(3)) claim | McBroom sought relief for fraud on the court decades later | Defendants: 60(c) requires motions under (1)-(3) within 90 days; his motion is untimely | Held: (b)(3) claims are untimely and not considered |
| Applicability / timeliness of 60(b)(4) claims | McBroom argued subject-matter and personal-jurisdiction defects render judgments void and thus timely at any point | Defendants: some 60(b)(4) claims may be untimely; district court also rejected merits | Court: declines to resolve whether all (b)(4) motions are time-limited; reviews and rejects McBroom’s (b)(4) claims on the merits |
| Merits: jurisdiction, notice, conflicts, and self-dealing | Lack of notice to minor, guardian conflicts, sale of contingent remainder invalid, no personal jurisdiction over McBroom, administrator self-dealt | Defendants: statutory scheme allowed notice to guardian as equivalent to notice to ward; McBroom submitted to jurisdiction by petitioning for guardianship; sale of remainder was permitted; conflict/self-dealing claims fail (statutes cited are not retroactive) | Held: district court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; notice-to-guardian sufficed; sale of contingent remainder valid; conflict/self-dealing theories fail; orders are not void |
Key Cases Cited
- McBroom v. Child, 392 P.3d 835 (Utah 2016) (prior appeal discussing factual history and related issues)
- Metro. Water Dist. of Salt Lake & Sandy v. Sorf, 304 P.3d 824 (Utah 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of Rule 60(b) motion)
- Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986) (time limitation of Rule 60(b) does not apply where judgment is void due to fatally 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 was void without asserting separate meritorious defense)
- Laub v. S. Cent. Utah Tel. Ass’n, 657 P.2d 1304 (Utah 1982) (Rule 60(b)(6) is residual and cannot be used if other subsections apply)
- Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1975) (age-of-majority context discussed)
- In re Estate of Myers, 214 P.3d 115 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (future interests may be transferred/sold)