Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 UT 28

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Neldon Johnson's Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate a divorce decree. The court held that a court of general jurisdiction has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a divorce even if the parties were later determined never to have entered a valid marriage. The court overruled Caffall v. Caffall and held that the divorce decree could not be collaterally attacked on that basis.

Holdings

1. A court of general jurisdiction has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a divorce petition and determine the parties' rights even if it later determines that no valid marriage existed.
2. The divorce decree could not be collaterally attacked on the asserted subject-matter-jurisdiction ground because the original court had authority to adjudicate the divorce proceeding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a court of general jurisdiction has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a divorce when the parties are later determined never to have been legally married.
2. Whether the divorce decree could be collaterally attacked through a Rule 60(b) motion on the ground that the parties lacked a valid marriage.

Disposition

affirmed