502 P.3d 1230
Utah Ct. App.2021Background
- Travis and Kristine Sanders divorced in 2001; Kristine obtained multiple monetary judgments against Travis after the divorce.
- Kristine had the judgments renewed in 2011 and, after incomplete collection, moved in January 2019 to renew them again.
- Travis opposed the 2019 renewal and filed a Rule 60(b) motion claiming he had satisfied the judgments; the court denied that motion, consolidated the judgments into a lump-sum, and renewed the judgment a second time in May 2019.
- Travis did not appeal the May 2019 renewal; about a year later he filed a second Rule 60(b)(4) motion arguing the second renewal was void because the Renewal of Judgment Act permits only one renewal.
- The district court dismissed the second motion as procedurally improper, finding Travis should have raised the argument in his first 60(b) motion; Travis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kristine) | Defendant's Argument (Travis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Travis waived his subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge by failing to raise it in his first Rule 60(b) motion | Travis waived additional defenses by not raising them earlier under Utah v. 736 N. Colo. St. | Rule 12(h) does not bar subject-matter-jurisdiction challenges; Travis could not have raised a challenge to a second renewal before it occurred | Court reversed: waiver did not apply to subject-matter-jurisdiction challenge; dismissal on that ground was error |
| Whether the second motion was an impermissible motion to reconsider | The second motion merely rehashed prior arguments and is therefore a forbidden reconsideration | The second motion presented a new legal theory (statutory jurisdictional challenge to a second renewal) tied to the subsequently entered renewed judgment | Court held the second motion raised a new theory and was not a motion to reconsider |
| Whether the second motion was untimely under Rule 60(c) (90-day or "reasonable time") | The motion was untimely and should be dismissed | The motion invoked Rule 60(b)(4) (void judgment), which is not subject to the 90-day limit and may be filed within a reasonable time (and may in some contexts be untimely not at all) | Court declined to decide timeliness; remanded so the district court can address merits first |
| Whether the second renewal was void under the Renewal of Judgment Act | The court properly renewed; statutory scheme allows renewal | The Act permits renewal only so long as the original judgment’s limitations period has not expired; a second renewal of a renewed judgment exceeded statutory authority, making the renewed judgment void | Not decided on appeal; case remanded for the district court to consider the merits of the voidness claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Utah v. 736 N. Colorado St., 127 P.3d 693 (Utah 2005) (rule 12(h) applies to Rule 60(b) and can bar late-raised defenses in some contexts)
- Menzies v. Galetka, 150 P.3d 480 (Utah 2006) (general standard: abuse of discretion for denial of most Rule 60(b) motions)
- Migliore v. Livingston Financial, LLC, 347 P.3d 394 (Utah 2015) (held a Rule 60(b)(4) attack to be not time-barred where judgment was void for denial of due process)
- In re Estate of Willey, 391 P.3d 171 (Utah 2016) (noted unsettled question whether all Rule 60(b)(4) claims are subject to Rule 60(c)’s reasonable-time limit)
- Gildea v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 347 P.3d 385 (Utah 2015) (a renewed judgment generally relates back to and extends the original judgment)
- Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986) (attacks on judgments void for fatally defective service are not subject to time limits)
- Gillett v. Price, 135 P.3d 861 (Utah 2006) (post-judgment motions to reconsider are generally not permitted)
- Scott v. Scott, 472 P.3d 897 (Utah 2020) (appellate courts may affirm on alternative grounds but are not required to do so)