Smith v. Smith
2017 UT 77
Utah2017Background
- Parents divorced; Father later petitioned to terminate Mother’s parental rights in juvenile court; juvenile court denied termination, awarded Mother custody, found Father and Stepmother in contempt, and ordered them to pay Mother’s attorney fees and costs.
- Father and Stepmother prematurely appealed the juvenile court order before the attorney-fee award was reduced to a district-court judgment; the court of appeals issued an opinion affirming in part and remanding contempt issues (that opinion became final).
- After juvenile-court jurisdiction ended and the matter moved back to district court, Mother sought entry of judgment for attorney fees; the district court entered a judgment for $180,780.47 on April 6, 2015.
- Father filed a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend, but the formal Rule 59 motion was electronically docketed just after midnight on April 21, 2015 (one day late under the filing deadline); a supporting memorandum was filed timely the night of April 20.
- The district court considered and denied Father’s late Rule 59 motion; Father appealed, but the Supreme Court held that the Rule 59 motion was untimely, the district court lacked authority to consider it under Utah R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2), and therefore this court lacks jurisdiction because the appeal deadline was not tolled.
- The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s October 27, 2015 order (denying Rule 59), reinstated the April 6, 2015 judgment as final, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and awarded Mother reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 59 motion was timely | Father contended filing was timely (electronic filing occurred before midnight) and/or the timely supporting memorandum should substitute for the motion | Mother argued the formal Rule 59 motion was untimely and the memorandum cannot substitute | The Rule 59 motion was filed after the deadline per the e-filing timestamp; the memorandum cannot substitute for a motion — motion untimely |
| Whether the district court could consider an untimely Rule 59 motion | Father argued the court had discretion and treated the motion as timely; relied on discretion and harmless-error doctrines | Mother argued Rule 6(b)(2) prohibits extension for Rule 59 and divests court of authority | Rule 6(b)(2) bars extending time for Rule 59; the district court lacked authority to consider the untimely motion |
| Whether excusable neglect or harmless error could cure the late filing | Father invoked excusable neglect, Pioneer factors, and harmless-error principles | Mother relied on rule text forbidding extensions for Rule 59 and on precedent that untimely Rule 59 motions cannot toll the appeal period | Excusable neglect/harmless-error unavailable for Rule 59; procedural rules control and bar relief |
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to decide the appeal | Father claimed the district court’s consideration preserved the issues and no objection was made below | Mother argued the untimely motion left the April 6 judgment final and appeal untimely | The appeal period was not tolled; notice of appeal was untimely; this Court lacks jurisdiction to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- DFI Props. LLC v. GR 2 Enters. LLC, 242 P.3d 781 (Utah 2010) (an attorney-fee award not reduced to a specific judgment is not final for appeal)
- Gillett v. Price, 135 P.3d 861 (Utah 2006) (postjudgment "motions to reconsider" do not toll appeal deadlines and are not recognized in lieu of rule-sanctioned motions)
- Sanpete Am., LLC v. Willardsen, 269 P.3d 118 (Utah 2011) (untimely Rule 59(e) motion cannot be granted; trial court may only deny it)
- Burgers v. Maiben, 652 P.2d 1320 (Utah 1982) (an untimely motion for new trial does not affect the running of the time for filing an appeal)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (factors for determining "excusable neglect" — cited but held inapplicable where rules expressly bar relief)