Utah Down Syndrome Foundation, Inc. v. Utah Down Syndrome Ass'n, 2012 UT 86

Gilbert appeals the district court's Disgorgement Order requiring him to disgorge $30,000 for legal fees representing the Utah Down Syndrome Association and its founders.
The Disgorgement Order arose from a dispute between the Foundation and the Association; Gilbert represented former Foundation officers and current Association founders who formed a competing nonprofit.
Gilbert was never named as a party to the proceedings, nor was he served with process; he did participate by opposing the disgorgement motions on behalf of his clients.
The district court ultimately granted the Foundation's final Motion for Disgorgement, ordering Gilbert to pay $32,453; he has not disgorged the fees.
Two disgorgement motions were filed; the second led to the Disgorgement Order that is the subject of this appeal.
Justice Parrish's opinion dismisses the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, while Justice Lee files a concurring opinion explaining a different approach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gilbert, as a nonparty, has an appeal as of right.	Gilbert argues he cannot be bound and thus has standing to appeal.	Foundation contends only parties may appeal as of right; Gilbert lacked party status.	Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Whether a nonparty can appeal under a 'de facto party' framework.	Gilbert would be a de facto party due to coercive order and participation.	Concurrence argues de facto party status is uncertain and should not govern jurisdiction.	Majority rejects de facto party standing for right-to-appeal; follows traditional intervention/extraordinary writ framework.
Was Gilbert's notice of appeal timely and properly related to a final judgment?	Notice of appeal should relate forward to a final judgment.	Gilbert's notice was premature and untimely; 60(b) motion could not revive rights.	Notice of appeal premature; 60(b) motion untimely; dismissal affirmed on jurisdictional grounds.

Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 2005 UT 19 (Utah 2005) (nonparties cannot appeal as of right; extraordinary writ available)
Ostler v. Buhler, 1999 UT 99 (Utah 1999) (de facto intervention recognized; nonparty standing to appeal debated)
Sun Sur. Ins. Co., 2004 UT 74 (Utah 2004) (nonparties cannot appeal criminal direct appeals; distinguishes civil context)
Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288 (Utah 1986) (timeliness of 60(b) motions; void judgments where service defective)
Murdock v. Blake, 484 P.2d 164 (Utah 1971) (proper service of process required to invoke jurisdiction; mere notice insufficient)