Pon v. Brewer, 468 P.3d 581

In January 2019 Pon obtained a temporary protective order against Brewer; a domestic relations commissioner recommended entry of a permanent protective order on May 7, 2019.
Brewer filed a written objection on May 21, 2019 under Utah R. Civ. P. 108 seeking an evidentiary hearing, arguing insufficient evidence.
Pon moved to strike the objection as untimely under Utah Code § 78B-7-107(1)(f), which sets a 10‑day objection deadline for commissioner recommendations in protective‑order proceedings.
The district court struck Brewer’s objection as untimely, applied the statutory 10‑day deadline, and entered the permanent protective order.
Brewer filed a Rule 60(b) motion and a notice of appeal the same day, asserting for the first time that the statute is unconstitutional because it conflicts with Rule 108(a)’s 14‑day deadline and was not enacted by a legislative supermajority.
The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion, but Brewer did not amend his notice of appeal to include that denial; the appellate court therefore declined to reach the constitutional challenge and assumed the statute’s validity for purposes of the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pon)	Defendant's Argument (Brewer)	Held
Whether Utah Code § 78B‑7‑107(1)(f) is unconstitutional because it conflicts with Utah R. Civ. P. 108(a) and was not enacted by a supermajority	Statute is valid and governs protective‑order procedure	Statute conflicts with Rule 108 and is unconstitutional because it was not enacted as a valid amendment to procedural rules	Appellate court lacked jurisdiction to decide the constitutional challenge because Brewer failed to amend his notice of appeal; court presumed statute constitutional
Whether the 10‑day statutory deadline or the 14‑day rule deadline governs objections to commissioner recommendations in protective‑order proceedings	The statute’s 10‑day deadline applies as the more specific provision for protective‑order proceedings	Rule 108(a)’s general 14‑day deadline should control	Assuming the statute is constitutional, the court held the statute’s 10‑day deadline controls because the Act is more specific and its provisions govern where they differ from the Rules of Civil Procedure

Brown v. Cox, 387 P.3d 1040 (Utah 2017) (describes limits on Legislature’s ability to modify court procedural rules and requirement of supermajority for amendments)
Olguin v. Anderton, 456 P.3d 760 (Utah 2019) (statutory interpretation and constitutionality are reviewed for correctness)
Dole v. Dole, 437 P.3d 464 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (failure to amend notice of appeal after disposition of a post‑trial motion deprives appellate court of jurisdiction to consider issues raised in that motion)
Dennett v. Ferber, 309 P.3d 313 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (same principle regarding lack of jurisdiction when appellate notice is not amended)
Salt Lake City v. Ohms, 881 P.2d 844 (Utah 1994) (statutes are presumed constitutional until clearly shown otherwise)
Broadbent v. Gibson, 140 P.2d 939 (Utah 1943) (same presumption of constitutionality)