Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy v. Sorf, 304 P.3d 824

District filed a complaint Oct 28, 2010 seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief re Easement across Sorf’s Sandy lot.
Process server attempted service at Sorf’s home; an adult resident refused to accept and papers were left in the driveway.
Sorf later received a letter referencing the complaint but claims no complaint was attached and believed settlement possible.
District moved for default judgment in Dec 2010; default judgment entered Dec 16, 2010; Sorf served with notice Dec 23, 2010.
Sorf retained counsel and moved under rule 60(b) claiming mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; district court denied.
This court vacates the denial and remands for factual findings on 60(b) relief and considers meritorious defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion under rule 60(b)(1).	Sorf properly served; no excusable neglect.	Sorf may have mistaken belief about service and obligation to answer.	Yes, abuse of discretion; remand for factual findings on 60(b)(1).
Whether Sorf alleged a meritorious defense under rule 60(b).	Defense lacks merit; records show no meritorious defense.	Proffered defenses could preclude recovery if proven.	Yes, meritorious defense alleged; remand to evaluate merits.

Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81 (Utah 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for 60(b) relief)
Lund v. Brown, 2000 UT 75 (Utah 2000) (meritorious defense threshold and liberal pleading standards for 60(b))
May v. Thompson, 677 P.2d 1109 (Utah 1984) (equity-based relief when genuine mistaken belief exists)
Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986) (differences between 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(4) regarding service)
Judson v. Wheeler RV Las Vegas, L.L.C., 270 P.3d 456 (Utah 2012) (Rule 8 pleading standards for meritorious defenses)