Robinson v. Robinson, 368 P.3d 105

Husband and Wife divorced after 2007 mediation; Stipulation for property division was incorporated into the 2008 divorce decree.
Husband later filed a September 2011 civil action alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and civil conspiracy related to the Stipulation and assets; Defendants include Wife and other family/associate defendants.
District court granted both a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, ruling various claims time-barred or inadequately pleaded and rejecting some res judicata defenses.
Court treated Husband’s claims as a separate action, not a Rule 60(b) motion to relief from judgment in the divorce case; addressed timeliness and applicability of Rule 60(b) versus independent action.
Husband argued discovery of fraud in October 2008; district court tracked to December 2007 information from a 2008 filing and related accountant letter; court ultimately converted or treated some proceedings as summary-judgment-type analyses.
Appellate court affirmed, holding several claims failed for lack of particularity, lack of fiduciary duty basis, and insufficient pleading of conspiracy, and denied Wife’s contract and statutory attorney-fee requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 60(b) applicability to independent action	Husband contends 60(b) governs relief from judgment via independent action.	Court-era: 60(b) is separate from independent actions; time limits apply to independent actions.	Rule 60(b) does not govern independently filed actions.
Statute of limitations on independent action	Husband's action timely under discovery or 60(b) framework.	Independent action subject to ordinary limitations; timely under governing period.	Statute of limitations applies to the independent action.
Fraud claims lack of particularity	Husband pleaded specific representations and reliance in each fraud theory.	Claims pleaded conclusorily; insufficient particularity per Rule 9(b).	Fraud claims failed for lack of particularity.
Fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy pleadings	There was a fiduciary or conspiracy framework between spouses and with others.	No sufficiently pleaded fiduciary duty; conspiracy lacks specific overt acts and meeting of minds.	District court did not err in dismissing fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy claims.
Attorney-fee entitlement	Stipulation and statute create fee entitlement for prevailing party.	Husband’s action did not amount to a breach of the Stipulation; no fee entitlement.	Wife not entitled to contractual or statutory attorney fees.

Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 70 P.3d 35 (Utah 2003) (Rule 9(b) pleading and particularity guidance in fraud actions)
First Sec. Bank of Utah N.A. v. Banberry Dev. Corp., 786 P.2d 1326 (Utah 1990) (fiduciary-duty analysis and conveyance of duties in banking context)
Puttuck v. Gendron, 199 P.3d 971 (Utah App. 2008) (summary-judgment standard and consideration of pleadings with outside materials)
Benns v. Career Serv. Review Office, 264 P.3d 563 (Utah App. 2011) (appellate review of dismissal standards)
Wardley Better Homes & Gardens v. Cannon, 61 P.3d 1009 (Utah 2002) (bad-faith and merit considerations in attorney-fee determinations)
Warner v. DMG Color, Inc., 20 P.3d 868 (Utah 2000) (meritless or frivolous standards in attorney-fee determinations)
Bayles v. Bayles, 981 P.2d 403 (Utah App. 1999) (post-divorce fraud claims may be pursued as Rule 60(b) motion or independent action)