282 P.3d 1033
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Chavez appeals denial of his rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from a default and default judgment.
- Chavez had filed an answer on September 23, 2008, which the record shows the trial court acknowledged.
- The clerk signed a default certificate and a default judgment though the docket showed Chavez answered.
- The court later dismissed the case sua sponte in August 2009 and Salazar moved to reopen; Chavez promptly moved upon notice of the default.
- Damages in the default judgment totaled $29,120 and Salazar did not present evidence supporting those damages; remand for merits and potential damages evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the default certificate and judgment were valid given Chavez answered | Chavez did file an answer; default improper | Record supports no valid defense or service issues justify default | Invalid; relief warranted; default and judgment vacated |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was appropriate given the equitable nature of the rule | Relief should be granted to resolve the merits | Relief should be denied due to alleged diligence issues | Yes, court abused discretion; relief granted and remand for merits |
| Whether damages awarded were supported by the pleadings and evidence | Damages requested by Salazar not proven with credible evidence | Damages were justified by the record | Not supported; remand for evidentiary hearing on damages |
| Timeliness of Chavez's Rule 60(b) motion | Motion timely after actual notice | Delay potentially unreasonable | Timeliness acceptable under Rule 60(b) analysis; within reasonable time |
| Appropriate remedy on remand for default and damages | Proceed on merits; proper set-aside of default | Procedural defects cured on remand | Remand for proceedings on the merits; vacate default and judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Menzies v. Galetka, 150 P.3d 480 (Utah Supreme Court 2006) (rule 60(b) requires equitable consideration and possible relief in the interest of justice)
- Harrison v. Thurston, 258 P.3d 665 (Utah App. 2011) (diligence required for excusable neglect; relief requires sufficient diligence)
- Skanchy v. Calcados Ortope SA, 952 P.2d 1071 (Utah 1998) (insufficient evidence to support damages absent sum certain; need hearing)
- Cadlerock Joint Venture II, LP v. Envelope Packaging of Utah, Inc., 251 P.3d 837 (Utah App. 2011) (default damages require documentary support; not excess beyond demand)
- Pitts v. Pine Meadow Ranch, Inc., 589 P.2d 767 (Utah 1978) (default judgment requires evidence of actual damages; not just testimony about property value)