Summary
The Utah Supreme Court considers an appeal from a district court judgment awarding a mother attorney fees and costs arising from juvenile court proceedings. The court holds that the father's Rule 59 motion was untimely under Utah's electronic filing requirements and therefore did not toll the time for appeal, depriving the court of jurisdiction to reach the merits. The matter is remanded for determination of reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Father's Rule 59 motion was timely under the applicable Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and the electronic-filing system's recorded filing time.
- Whether a timely filed memorandum supporting an untimely Rule 59 motion could substitute for or cure the late motion.
- Whether a district court may extend the time to file a Rule 59 motion based on excusable neglect, harmless error, equitable considerations, or lack of objection.
- Whether the untimely Rule 59 motion tolled the time for filing Father's notice of appeal and gave the Utah Supreme Court jurisdiction to reach the merits.
- Whether Mother was entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal.
Holdings
- The Rule 59 motion was untimely because the electronic docket recorded its filing after midnight on the applicable deadline.
- A timely filed supporting memorandum cannot substitute for an untimely filed Rule 59 motion.
- Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) prohibited the district court from extending the time to file the Rule 59 motion or accepting it based on excusable neglect, harmless error, equitable considerations, or waiver.
- The untimely Rule 59 motion did not toll the deadline for filing a notice of appeal, so Father's November 25, 2015 notice of appeal was untimely and the Utah Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits.
- Mother was entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs on appeal because she prevailed in the domestic case below and on appeal and had received an award of fees below.
Key quotations
“Therefore, a timely memorandum in support of an unfiled motion will not act as a substitute for an untimely filed rule 59 motion.” (¶ 17)
“Without a timely filed motion, the supporting memorandum is of no value.” (¶ 19)
“An untimely rule 59(e) motion will not toll the deadline for filing an appeal.” (¶ 30)
“The mandate of rule 6(b)(2) cannot be waived. It is not open to discretion but is required, and failure to follow its mandate constitutes error.” (¶ 35)
Factual background
Mother and Father petitioned for divorce in 2008. Father later sought termination of Mother's parental rights based on unsubstantiated abuse allegations, while Mother sought termination of Father's rights or physical custody; the juvenile court denied Father's petition, awarded Mother custody, held Father and Stepmother in contempt, and ordered them to pay Mother's legal fees and costs. After juvenile-court jurisdiction ended, the district court entered a $180,780.47 judgment for Mother's fees and costs. Father filed his Rule 59 motion after the applicable deadline, although his supporting memorandum was filed shortly before midnight on the deadline.
Procedural history
After the juvenile court awarded Mother attorney fees and costs in proceedings concerning parental rights and custody, the court of appeals affirmed most of the juvenile court's order and vacated the contempt ruling. After juvenile-court jurisdiction terminated, the district court entered a $180,780.47 judgment for Mother's fees and costs. The district court considered Father's untimely Rule 59 motion on the merits, and Father then appealed. The Utah Supreme Court vacated the order addressing the Rule 59 motion, held that the notice of appeal was untimely, declined to reach the merits, awarded Mother appellate fees and costs, and remanded for determination of those fees and costs.
Remand instructions
The October 27, 2015 district court order addressing Father's Rule 59 motion is vacated. The April 6, 2015 judgment remains the operative judgment. The case is remanded to the district court to determine the amount of Mother's reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal.