277 P.3d 649
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Silver Baron Partners, LC and Daedalus USA, Inc. appeal a contract-dispute judgment with Shamrock Plumbing after a default judgment.
- Shamrock cross-appeals, arguing the trial court erred in setting aside the default on excusable neglect grounds.
- The trial court set aside the default judgment without an explicit due-diligence finding, relying on a long-term counsel relationship and notice issues.
- Timeline: Jan 9, 2009 withdrawal of counsel; Jan 12, 2009 notice to appear or appoint counsel; Feb 6, 2009 proposed default certificates; Feb 12, 2009 motions and affidavits for default; Mar 5, 2009 default judgment; Mar 18, 2009 corrected judgment; Mar 19, 2009 entry of appearance and motion to set aside.
- Court holds the circumstances do not show due diligence; prior defaults and mail-ignorance pattern undercut excusable neglect; thus the trial court exceeded its discretion and reinstates the March 18, 2009 default.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does excusable neglect require demonstrable due diligence by the moving party? | Shamrock argues due diligence is required for excusable neglect. | Defendants contend the trial court has broad discretion and may excuse neglect based on circumstances and counsel relationship. | Yes; excusable neglect requires diligence; court erred in not finding due diligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Layton/Okland, 214 P.3d 859 (Utah 2009) (excusable neglect requires some evidence of diligence)
- Menzies v. Galetka, 150 P.3d 480 (Utah 2006) (district court broad discretion under rule 60(b))
- Swallow v. Kennard, 183 P.3d 1052 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (diligence essential in excusable neglect inquiry)
- Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, Dep't of Emp't Sec., 733 P.2d 130 (Utah 1987) (definition of excusable neglect as 'due diligence' by prudent person)