Shamrock Plumbing v. Silver Baron Partners
2012 UT App 70
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Shamrock obtained a March 2009 default judgment against Silver Baron Partners, LC and Daedalus USA, Inc. in a contract dispute.
- Defendants later moved to set aside the default under Rule 60(b) alleging excusable neglect due to lack of diligence.
- Shamrock argued Defendants ignored notices received by regular mail and relied on counsel, despite a long relationship and prior defaults for not reading mail.
- Shamrock had previously attempted to notify Defendants via withdrawal of counsel, appointment of new counsel, and default certificates, all sent between January and March 2009.
- The trial court set aside the default based on a perceived lack of personal contact and long-term counsel relationship, without explicit diligence findings.
- This Court reinstates the default judgment, holding the trial court exceeded its discretion because Defendants showed no due diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly set aside the default under Rule 60(b). | Shamrock | Silver Baron/Daedalus | No; default should not be set aside for excusable neglect |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Layton/Okland, 2009 UT 39 (Utah Supreme Court 2009) (excusable neglect requires diligence to justify relief)
- Swallow v. Kennard, 2008 UT App 134 (Utah Appellate Court 2008) (excusable neglect defined as due diligence by a reasonably prudent person)
- Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n, 733 P.2d 130 (Utah Supreme Court 1987) (definition of excusable neglect includes exercising due diligence)
- Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81 (Utah Supreme Court 2006) (district court has broad but limited discretion on Rule 60(b))
- Davis v. Goldsworthy, 2008 UT App 145 (Utah Appellate Court 2008) (law disfavors default judgments; preference for merits)