Metropolitan Water v. Sorf, 304 P.3d 824

Aqueduct easement crosses Sorf's Sandy, Utah lot, giving District rights over part of the property.
Sorf began backyard improvements in 2009 that District contends threaten the Easement and access.
District filed a complaint October 28, 2010 seeking declaratory relief and injunctive relief to remove improvements.
Process server attempted service at residence; a woman misidentified as Sorf’s wife refused service; papers ended up in driveway.
District sent a letter referencing an attached complaint and possible settlement; Sorf did not receive a copy of the complaint; Sorf later learned of the suit after default was entered.
Default judgment entered December 16, 2010; Sorf served with notice December 23, 2010 and retained counsel; default prompted motion to set aside under Rule 60(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 60(b) relief was proper for mistake/inadvertence/surprise	Sorf asserts lack of timely response due to mistaken belief he was not served	District argues proper service; no excusable neglect	Remand for factual findings; potential 60(b)(1) relief exists
Whether Sorf proffered a meritorious defense	District’s easement rights and enforcement are valid	Sorf defenses (overbroad regulations, partial abandonment, equitable estoppel) may preclude relief	Meritorious defense shown; vacate and remand for merits determination

Menzies v. Galetka, 150 P.3d 480 (2006 UT 81) (abuse of discretion standard for 60(b) motions; equitable relief favored)
Lund v. Brown, 11 P.3d 277 (2000 UT 75) (merits-based inquiry for 60(b) relief; liberal defense standard)
May v. Thompson, 677 P.2d 1109 (Utah 1984) (default when mistaken absence of notice may warrant relief)
McKean v. Mountain View Mem’l Estates, Inc., 411 P.2d 129 (Utah 1966) (equitable purposes of 60(b); full opportunity to present case)
Judson v. Wheeler RV Las Vegas, L.L.C., 270 P.3d 456 (Utah 2012) (liberal pleading standard under Rule 8 for meritorious defenses)