611 P.2d 369 | Utah | 1980
Lead Opinion
Defendant Agla Development Corporation seeks reversal of the denial of its motion based on Rule 60(b), U.R.C.P.,
Plaintiff commenced this action on May 16,1978. Defendant responded with an answer asserting defenses and a counterclaim. A pre-trial conference was held on April 16, 1979, at which defendant’s counsel Robert J. Haws requested that he be allowed to withdraw, which request the court granted. The court instructed plaintiff’s attorney to notify the defendant to obtain new counsel, and that the case was set for trial on May 7, 1979. Plaintiff’s attorney certifies that on April 16, such a notice was mailed to the defendant addressed to its business office. The record also contains a certification by defendant’s then counsel, Mr. Haws, that he mailed to the defendant a notice of the trial setting and of his withdrawal as counsel. As opposed to the foregoing stands the defendant’s denial that it ever received such notices.
On the day set for trial, May 7, no one appeared on defendant’s behalf; and upon the basis of evidence presented, judgment was entered for the plaintiff and defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed.
In support of its motion to set aside the default judgment, defendant avers that its former counsel, Mr. Haws, withdrew from a number of cases simultaneously; and that the notice to appoint counsel may have been misplaced with numerous papers served upon the defendant’s office by mail. And further, that it had no notice of the trial until it received the notice of the judgment dated May 14, whereupon it immediately
It is not to be questioned that in appropriate circumstances default judgments are justified; and when they are, they are invulnerable to attack. However, they are not favored in the law, especially where a party has timely responded with challenging pleadings. When that has been done some caution should be observed to see that the party is not taken advantage of. Speaking generally about such problems, it is to be kept in mind that access to the courts for the protection of rights and the settlement of disputes is one of the most important factors in the maintenance of a peaceable and well-ordered society.
This is admittedly a perplexing case. From the standpoint of the plaintiff and its counsel, they appear to have proceeded without any impropriety, including appearing on the trial date and presenting their case. Defendant counters with the aver-ments that it received no such notice. Supportive of the defendant’s position, are the facts that the justification for its default rests upon the assertion of service of notice by ordinary mail; and that immediately upon learning of the judgment, it proceeded diligently with efforts to set it aside and contest the issues on the merits.
The uniformally acknowledged policy of the law is to accord litigants the opportunity for a hearing on the merits, where that can be done without serious injustice to the other party.
Application of the principles discussed herein to the instant situation leads us to the conclusion that the interests of justice will best be served by setting aside the default judgment and giving the parties that opportunity. In that connection, we call attention to the prefatory clause of Rule 60(b) that “upon such terms as are just” a party may be relieved from a judgment. This authorizes the trial court to impose such terms as may be just as a condition to setting aside the default.
The default judgment is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. No costs awarded.
. The rule provides that:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may in the furtherance of justice relieve a party . from a final judgment . . for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . . . The motion shall be made . not more than three months after the judgment . . . was entered . . .
. Sec. 11, Art. 1, Utah Constitution.
. Locke v. Peterson, 3 Utah 2d 415, 285 P.2d 1111 (1955).
. See Mayhew v. Standard Gilsonite Company, 14 Utah 2d 52, 376 P.2d 951 (1962).
.See Cutler v. Haycock, 32 Utah 354, 90 P. 897 (1907); Locke v. Peterson, footnote 3 above.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
In denying defendant’s motion to vacate judgment, the trial court was applying a specific statutory standard: “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may in the furtherance of justice relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . .”
The trial court is endowed with considerable latitude of discretion in granting or denying a motion to relieve a party from a final judgment under Rule 60(b)(1), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, and this court will reverse the trial court only where an abuse of this discretion is clearly established . . . [t]he rule that the courts will incline toward granting relief to a party, who has not had the opportunity to present his case, is ordinarily applied at the trial court level, and this court will not reverse the determination of the trial court merely because the motion could have been granted. For this court to overturn the discretion of the lower court in refusing to vacate a valid judgment, the requirements of public policy demand more than a mere statement that a person did not have his day in court when full opportunity for fair hearing was afforded him or his legal representative.5
Such trial court discretion has, in fact, been given the widest berth by reviewing courts in the area of motions to vacate judgment which are based on allegations of mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect.
This Court has previously stated that neglect, to be excusable, must occur despite the exercise of due diligence.
I would affirm the decision of the trial court denying defendant’s motion to vacate judgment.
. Rule 60Cb)(l), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
. Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co. v. Paul W. Larson Contractor, Inc., Utah, 544 P.2d 876 (1975).
. Warren v. Dixon Ranch Co., 123 Utah 416, 260 P.2d 741 (1953); Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Cox, 14 Utah 2d 385, 384 P.2d 806 (1963); Cutler v. Haycock, 32 Utah 354, 90 P. 897 (1907).
. Warren v. Dixon Ranch Co., supra, footnote 3; Mayhew v. Standard Gilsonite Co., 14 Utah 2d 52, 376 P.2d 951 (1962).
. Airkem Intermountain, Inc. v. Parker, 30 Utah 2d 65, 513 P.2d 429 (1973).
. Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Cox, supra, footnote 3; Mayhew v. Standard Gilsonite Co., supra, footnote 4; Swauger v. Lawler, 116 Utah 347, 209 P.2d 930 (1949); see also Manhattan-Ward, Inc. v. Grinnell Corp., 490 F.2d 1183 (2nd Cir. 1974).
. Heath v. Mower, Utah, 597 P.2d 855 (1979).
. Airkem Intermountain, Inc. v. Parker, supra, footnote 5.
. Kromm v. Kromm, 84 Cal.App.2d 523, 191 P.2d 115 (1948); see also Elms v. Elms, 72 Cal.App.2d 508, 164 P.2d 936 (1946).
. Doyle v. Rice Ranch Oil Co., 28 Cal.App.2d 18, 81 P.2d 980 (1938).
. Usery v. Weiner Bros., Inc., 70 F.R.D. 615 (D.C.1976).
. Heath v. Mower, supra, footnote 7.