A. S. v. R. S.

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of an appeal concerning an attorney-fee award because the appellant’s Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion was filed after the applicable deadline. The court held that a timely supporting memorandum could not substitute for an untimely motion and remanded for determination of the appellee’s reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal.

Holdings

1. A timely filed memorandum supporting an unfiled or untimely Rule 59 motion is not a substitute for the motion required by Rule 59 and does not preserve appellate jurisdiction.
2. Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) prohibits a district court from extending the time to file a Rule 59 motion; excusable neglect, harmless error, inherent authority, and lack of objection cannot overcome that prohibition.
3. An untimely Rule 59 motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal; because Father's notice of appeal was filed after the applicable deadline, the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
4. Mother was entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal because she prevailed in the domestic proceedings below and on appeal, and the lower courts had awarded her fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a memorandum supporting a Rule 59 motion, filed timely but without the motion itself, can substitute for an untimely filed Rule 59 motion.
2. Whether Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) permits a district court to accept or consider an untimely Rule 59 motion based on excusable neglect, harmless error, inherent authority, or the absence of prejudice.
3. Whether an untimely Rule 59 motion tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal and establishes appellate jurisdiction.
4. Whether Mother was entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal.

Disposition

vacated