Tami Jean Matthews v. David Todd Matthews

Summary

The Utah Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction over an appeal despite the appellant's failure to name one opposing guardian in the notice of appeal and principal brief. The court concluded that the district court misinterpreted Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and erred in excusing the guardians' untimely attorney-fee motion. It also held that the guardianship petition was not shown to be without merit under Utah Code section 75-5-303(2)(c), and reversed the attorney-fee award.

Holdings

1. The court had jurisdiction because Tami timely filed her notice of appeal; failure to name Tina Matthews as an opposing party did not deprive the court of jurisdiction.
2. The district court erred as a matter of law by treating Tami's memorandum opposing fees as noncompliant because it was titled an opposition rather than an objection and did not dispute the amount of fees. Rule 73's fourteen-day filing requirement applies to the party claiming attorney fees, and Tami complied with the applicable opposition procedure.
3. The petition was not shown to be 'without merit,' and the district court erred in awarding attorney fees on that basis. 'Without merit' under section 75-5-303(2)(c) means more than merely losing; it implies a claim bordering on frivolity, of little weight or importance, or having no basis in law or fact.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Utah Court of Appeals had jurisdiction when Tami's notice of appeal and principal brief did not name Tina Matthews as an appellee.
2. Whether the district court correctly applied Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 73 in excusing the guardians' untimely motion for attorney fees.
3. Whether the petition was 'without merit' under Utah Code section 75-5-303(2)(c), so as to support an award of attorney fees.

Disposition

reversed