Judson v. Wheeler RV Las Vegas, L.L.C.

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court considers whether Wheeler RV Las Vegas was entitled to relief from a default judgment under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court holds that Wheeler sufficiently alleged meritorious defenses involving successor liability and personal jurisdiction, although it did not properly invoke relief under Rule 60(b)(4). The court reverses and remands for further proceedings on whether surprise or excusable neglect justified the failure to answer.

Holdings

1. A motion is not properly treated as a Rule 60(b)(4) motion merely because it mentions possible jurisdictional defects; the motion must seek relief on the ground that the judgment is void. Wheeler's motion was substantively presented as a Rule 60(b)(1) motion asserting lack of personal jurisdiction as a meritorious defense.
2. A party seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(1) must make a clear and specific proffer of a defense that, if proven, would preclude total or partial recovery. The proffer is governed by a liberal pleading standard analogous to Rule 8 and need only state the essential grounds of the defense in short and plain terms; the movant need not prove the defense at the Rule 60 stage.
3. The record did not permit the Utah Supreme Court to determine whether Wheeler's failure to answer resulted from surprise or excusable neglect. Because the court of appeals had not reached that issue, the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
4. A separate meritorious defense is generally required for Rule 60(b) relief, but it is not required when relief is sought under Rule 60(b)(4) because the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction or constitutionally adequate notice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Wheeler's Rule 60(b) motion should have been construed as seeking relief from a judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 60(b)(4).
2. Whether Wheeler sufficiently alleged a meritorious defense to satisfy the gateway requirement for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).
3. Whether Wheeler's failure to answer resulted from surprise or excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded