Miles v. Miles
269 P.3d 958
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Wife filed for divorce on June 24, 2008, after Husband left the marital home and moved to Florida with his girlfriend.
- Husband did not provide a forwarding address and emptied joint accounts, abandoned the leased vehicle, and left no clear whereabouts.
- Wife attempted to locate and serve Husband; after unsuccessful initial service, she sought alternative service under Rule 4(d)(4)(A).
- District court granted alternative service by mailing to four addresses, including a Margate, Florida address and the Castle Dale, Utah PO box, and Wife served those addresses on August 4, 2008.
- A default divorce decree was entered on October 15, 2008 after Husband failed to respond; Husband learned of the decree in November 2008 via a QDRO notice at a Florida address where he actually resided.
- In January 2009, Husband moved to vacate the decree under Rule 60(b)(4), arguing lack of personal jurisdiction; Wife opposed, reiterating service difficulties and diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had personal jurisdiction via alternative service | Miles contends lack of notice; service was not properly diligent. | Miles asserts the district court properly granted alternative service due to unknown whereabouts and reasonable diligence. | The district court properly granted alternative service and obtained jurisdiction. |
| Duty to notify of actual address after knowledge of whereabouts | Miles argues Wife knew Crawfordville address before judgment and had a duty to notify. | Miles argues Wife should have informed the court and him if she learned of current address prior to judgment. | Issue not preserved for review; decline to address. |
| Attorney fees for failure to appear at hearing | Miles challenges the reasonableness or necessity of the fee award. | Miles concedes the amount is not unreasonable but challenges the trial court's consideration of factors. | Award of $1000 upheld; within court's inherent power to control proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Soc. Servs. v. Vijil, 784 P.2d 1130 (Utah 1989) (lack of jurisdiction voids judgment; no deference on legal question)
- Cooke v. Cooke, 22 P.3d 1249 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (burden on party challenging jurisdiction; preserved issues)
- Jackson Constr. Co. v. Marrs, 100 P.3d 1211 (Utah 2004) (presumption of jurisdiction; heavy burden to show absence)
- Parker v. Ross, 217 P.2d 373 (Utah 1950) (reasonableness of diligence in locating a party)
- Bonneville Billing v. Whatley, 949 P.2d 768 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (preservation and diligence requirements for service)
- Carlson v. Bos, 740 P.2d 1269 (Utah 1987) (Due Process and service diligence standards)
- Griffith v. Griffith, 985 P.2d 255 (Utah 1999) (courts’ inherent powers to sanction and manage proceedings)
- Stan Katz Real Estate v. Chaver, 565 P.2d 1142 (Utah 1977) (evidentiary considerations for affidavits and hearings)
- Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (preservation requirements and appellate briefing standards)