¶1 Luonda M. Davis appeals default Rules Civil Procedure. We affirm. Express Recovery Services (Express) caused be served residence. prepared Bringhurst Process Service stated “at dwelling house usual place abode Luonda delivering Patrick Boone, co resident Luonda Davis, residing.” After failed answer complaint, default amount representing incurred filed timely default pursuant 60(b)(1), claiming excusable supporting affidavit, “did [the] *2 paperwork” and had no knowledge of the judgment until saw it on her credit report. stated, “This is my bill, sign for any services rendered.” court found that the summons and complaint were “properly served upon a person of at the residence of the Defendant.” The court found that that a the at under rule 60(b)(1). Finally, that “failed to raise a meritorious defense that the claims made are family as defined by Utah Law.” On appeal, Davis argues, apparently for the first time, the received the and residence. ¶4 Davis provide a transcript of the hearing on 60(b) motion. See R. App. P. 11(e)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on appeal a finding or conclusion is unsupported or contrary the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant such conclusion.”). trial court’s determination whether the moving party has demonstrated grounds aside a judgment 60(b) will when the trial has abused its discretion. See Swallow v. Kennard , 2008 UT App 134, ¶ 19, 83 P.3d 1052. In the context of a denial of a motion, review court’s findings of fact clear error conclusions of law correctness. See id. “Further, although existence of a meritorious may a factor, appeal of a Rule order addresses only propriety grant of relief. appeal does . . reach merits of underlying which sought.” Id. (citation internal quotation marks omitted). order obtain reversal, must show against as result neglect, set timely, have meritorious defense. See id. ¶ 21. “[I]t is unnecessary, moreover inappropriate, even issue meritorious unless is satisfied [under rule 60(b)] has been shown.” Department Soc. Servs. v. Musselman , 667 P.2d 1053, 1055–56 (Utah 1983).

¶5 A return service, whether sheriff, constable, private process server, is presumptively prima facie facts therein. See Cooke Cooke, ¶ 9, 22 P.3d 1249. Because all servers are subject criminal charges falsifying service, their returns are *3 “presumptively can be disproved clear convincing evidence.” Id Nowhere in motion affidavit did claim person receiving did not not a discretion receive process. Thus, did not demonstrate clear convincing service improper. Accordingly, did abuse its discretion in proper. claim documents from both unpersuasive insufficient support abuse denying because demonstrate another ground relief judgment. proffered agree financially responsible care However, because entitle 60(b), we do claimed complaint. Accordingly, affirm judgment. ____________________________________

Gregory K. Judge

____________________________________

James Z. Judge

____________________________________

J. Frederic Voros Jr., Judge