Robinson v. Baggett
2011 UT App 250
Utah Ct. App.2011Background
- Husband challenges the Amended Decree following a lengthy divorce proceedings and seeks Rule 60(b) relief from judgment.
- Married 1995, children: one minor; temporary support and alimony provisions were set by a 2003 Temporary Order.
- Trial court bifurcated proceedings; 2005 divorce granted with reserved issues for final ruling on child support, alimony, property, and debts.
- Judge Roth, in 2006 Memorandum Decision, awarded Wife alimony of $1,882/month for 114 months, with one year credit for pre-trial payments and retirement accounts to be divided; argued date of commencement as January 4, 2006 for permanent alimony after modification.
- Between 2006 and 2008, the parties negotiated; in 2007 hearing Judge Roth clarified alimony would commence January 4, 2006; retirement accounts divided as of that date; Amended Decree entered April 11, 2008 setting alimony at $2,499/month for 102 months beginning April 11, 2008, extending alimony beyond Judge Roth’s 102-month term.
- Husband filed First Rule 60(b) motion (June 2008) which Judge Faust denied as untimely; no appeal on that denial; Second Rule 60(b) motion filed July 2008 alleging inconsistency with Judge Roth’s rulings; Judge Maughan denied February 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Amended Decree is a final, appealable order and thus subject to Rule 60(b) review | Husband contends the Amended Decree is non-final or not properly appealable. | Wife contends the Amended Decree resolved essential issues and was final. | Amended Decree is a final, appealable order subject to Rule 60(b) review. |
| Whether Judge Maughan abused discretion in denying the Second Rule 60(b) Motion | Amended Decree conflicted with Judge Roth's January 2006 ruling on alimony commencement and duration; relief under Rule 60(b)(6) warranted. | Motion should be barred as a renewal of the first motion or merits not reached; arguments too late and merits improper under Rule 60(b). | Judge Maughan abused discretion; Rule 60(b)(6) relief warranted to vacate the Amended Decree and remand for consistent final decree. |
| Whether the 60(b) relief should be limited by res judicata or law-of-the-case considerations | New grounds were available earlier; rule 60(b) should not be used to relitigate merits | Exceptions and equitable relief may apply given exceptional circumstances and late-clarified memorialization. | Equitable considerations justified relief; not barred by law-of-the-case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradbury v. Valencia, 2000 UT 50 (Utah) (final judgment requirement for appeal under Rule 60(b))
- Walsh Plumbing Co. v. State, 399 P.2d 141 (Utah 1965) (final disposition requirement for appeal)
- Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schettler, 768 P.2d 950 (Utah Ct.App. 1989) (law-of-the-case concern in successive Rule 60(b) motions)
- Kunzler v. O'Dell, 855 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct.App. 1993) (Rule 60(b) relief for issues not covered by subsections (1)-(5))
- Foster v. Montgomery, 2003 UT App 405 (Utah) (finality and disposition of litigation for appeal)
- Am amalgamated Transit Union v. Utah Transit Auth., 99 P.3d 379 (Utah) (threshold jurisdiction and finality considerations)
- Swenson Assocs. Architects, PC v. State, 889 P.2d 415 (Utah) (signed minute entry can be final order for purposes of appeal)