A.S. v. R.S.

Citation: 416 P.3d 465Docket: No. 20151023

Court: Utah Supreme Court; November 13, 2017; Utah; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Justice Durham ruled that the court lacks jurisdiction to address the merits of A.S. (Father)'s appeal regarding the district court's award of attorney fees and costs to R.S. (Mother) in juvenile court proceedings. The appeal is dismissed, and Mother is awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs for the appeal process, with the case remanded to the district court for calculation of those fees.

In 2008, Mother and Father initiated divorce proceedings. In 2012, Father sought to terminate Mother's parental rights, making unsubstantiated claims of abuse. Mother countered with a request for custody or termination of Father's rights. Due to the juvenile court's exclusive jurisdiction over parental rights termination and severe child abuse allegations, the juvenile court heard the case instead of the district court. Although both courts had concurrent jurisdiction over certain matters, the juvenile court maintained authority to adjust custody and support for child safety.

The juvenile court denied Father's petition, awarded custody to Mother, and held both Father and J.S. (Stepmother) in contempt, ordering them to pay Mother's legal fees. Father and Stepmother's appeal was premature as it involved an attorney fees award not yet finalized as a judgment. The court of appeals, unaware of this, affirmed the juvenile court's order except for the contempt ruling, which was remanded for a hearing.

During the appeal, the juvenile court retained jurisdiction over the children’s welfare, conducting status hearings, and later issued a contempt order against Father and Stepmother.

The juvenile court resolved outstanding motions in a child welfare case on March 17, 2014, released the Guardian ad Litem, and terminated its jurisdiction, transferring matters related to attorney fees to the district court for exclusive jurisdiction. The juvenile court's findings are binding in divorce actions when filed with the district court. The district court has the authority to modify custody, support, and related matters. Following the jurisdiction transfer, Mother filed a motion for attorney fees ordered by the juvenile court. Father contested the authority to award these fees but did not challenge the amount. A commissioner initially halted proceedings due to Father's claims regarding jurisdiction, but noted that the juvenile court's ruling stood as it came from a higher authority. The district court later upheld the attorney fee judgment, awarding Mother $180,780.47 on April 6, 2015. Father had 14 days to file a motion for a new trial under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 59, due by April 20, 2015. Although Father claims he filed the motion on April 20-21, 2015, the court noted it was officially filed on April 21, 2015, based on time stamps. Supplemental briefing was ordered to address the timeliness of the motion; however, Father failed to prove that the filing was timely, resulting in the court lacking jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.

Timeliness of a Rule 59(e) motion is a legal matter reviewed for correctness, with district court errors in granting untimely motions categorized as legal errors. Jurisdiction to address the merits of an appeal is also a question of law reviewed for correctness, and such jurisdiction can be challenged at any time during proceedings. In this case, the Father did not file a timely notice of appeal, leading to a lack of jurisdiction to address the raised issues, resulting in dismissal of the appeal. The court's jurisdiction is established under Utah Code section 78-3-102(3)(b). 

The discussion focuses on the jurisdictional issue, specifically the untimeliness of the Father’s Rule 59 motion, which precludes consideration of the case's merits. The excerpt details the electronic filing requirements mandated by the Judicial Council, which obligates electronic filing for various court types as of specific dates from 2013 to 2017. The e-Filing Guide outlines guidelines, including that the official filing date is determined by when the court's electronic filing manager receives and posts the document, not when it is submitted to the Service Provider. Late filings due to technical failures are not excused, placing the responsibility for timely submissions on the filer.

The Board of District Court Judges in Utah published a document titled "E-filing in Utah's State Courts: Frequently Asked Questions for Attorneys," providing guidance on e-filing procedures. It clarifies that if the e-filing system is unavailable or if a filing fails due to technical issues, this does not excuse a late filing. Filers are responsible for ensuring timely submissions and are advised to allow sufficient time for filing time-sensitive documents. In cases where a technical failure impacts a deadline, filers should consider filing a stipulation or motion and contacting the e-filing specialist for assistance.

In this case, the Rule 59 motion was filed after the deadline, which the Judicial Council mandates be the filer's responsibility. The father contends that his timely memorandum in support of the late motion should be treated as a valid filing to confer appellate jurisdiction. However, he relies on cases that are either distinguishable or were abrogated, failing to adequately address the strict requirements of Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2), which does not permit the district court to accept untimely Rule 59 motions due to excusable neglect. His arguments lack sufficient legal support and do not meet the burden required for presenting clear issues and reasoned arguments. The guidelines emphasize that effective advocacy requires thorough preparation, and parties must not expect the court or opposing counsel to fill in gaps in their arguments.

The timely filed memorandum cannot substitute for the untimely filed Rule 59 motion to alter or amend a judgment, as Rule 59 explicitly mandates that such a motion be filed within 28 days of the judgment. Father's assertion that an amendment to Rule 7 allows for the merger of the motion and memorandum is incorrect, as is his argument that Rule 61 provides relief for harmless errors in filing. According to Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, motions must clearly state the relief sought and the grounds for it, while initial memoranda are separate and limited to 10 pages unless otherwise permitted by the court. The only timely document in this case was the memorandum, which has no value without a corresponding timely motion. Additionally, even if a motion had been timely filed, the court could have discretion over the supporting memorandum, which exceeded the page limit and lacked required elements for an overlength submission. Prior cases allowing supplementation of insufficient motions do not apply here, as they involved timely motions, while Father failed to file any timely motion, thus barring any opportunity for supplementation under Rule 6(b)(2).

An incorrectly titled motion is not a barrier to its consideration, as established in previous cases; however, recent rulings have clarified that postjudgment motions to reconsider do not toll the time for appeal because they are not recognized under Utah procedural rules. The principle of "substance over form" was previously applied, but this was abrogated by Gillett, which emphasized adherence to procedural rules. Consequently, all postjudgment motions to reconsider, regardless of their substantive content, are not sanctioned and do not extend the appeal period. While motions for a new trial under Rule 59 are distinct and not subject to the same restrictions as motions to reconsider, the form and structure of all motions are critical for determining their validity and the relief they seek. Father's argument for the acceptance of an untimely filed Rule 59 motion is rejected due to improper form and insufficient substance, as it failed to specify the relief and grounds sought clearly. The court underscored that procedural integrity is essential for reliable legal processes and that the rules must be followed to ascertain available relief.

Father's claim that the amendment to rule 7(c)(1) seven months after his filing makes his previous error 'innocent, harmless, and insignificant' is unfounded. He must adhere to the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure as they were at the time of his filing, and subsequent amendments do not rectify past mistakes. His memorandum fails to meet the requirements under both the 2014 and 2015 versions of rule 7, which mandate that a motion must clearly state the requested relief and its grounds. While Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 61 allows courts to overlook errors that do not affect substantial rights, it does not permit the use of 'harmless error' to justify a new trial or to alter a judgment. Additionally, rule 6(b)(2) specifically prohibits the court from extending the deadline for filing a rule 59(e) motion due to lateness being deemed 'harmless error.' Father's untimely rule 59 motion was filed after the April 20, 2015 deadline, and his reference to a Pennsylvania case is irrelevant and non-binding in this context. As a result, the district court was not permitted to consider his late filing.

The trial court must maintain jurisdiction to accept motions, as established in the opinion. In this case, the district court lost jurisdiction per Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2), which prohibits extending time limits under Rules 50(b), 52(b), 59(b), (d), (e), and 60(c). Unlike the Arches case, where the trial court had not issued a final judgment and could consider an untimely post-trial motion, the district court here had already rendered a final, appealable judgment and lacked the discretion to consider an untimely Rule 59 motion.

Father's reference to Burdick v. Horner Townsend, Kent, Inc. is noted, but the circumstances differ as Burdick involved a pre-final judgment scenario where the court had jurisdiction to consider a reconsideration motion. The Burdick ruling clarified that motions for reconsideration are not recognized under Utah procedural rules and that trial courts have discretion in addressing such motions, which is not applicable here due to the final judgment already in place.

Moreover, the discussion on 'excusable neglect' from Pioneer Investment Services highlights that while a court may extend time for motions post-deadline for good cause, this does not apply to Rule 59(e) motions. Consequently, since the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the untimely Rule 59 motion, its refusal to do so was not an abuse of discretion.

An untimely motion filed under Rule 59(e) is automatically denied by the district court, as established in Sanpete Am. LLC v. Willardsen and Burgers v. Maiben. The court has no authority to extend the ten-day limit for such motions, and filing outside this period does not toll the deadline for appeals. Consequently, the district court's order regarding an untimely Rule 59 motion is void, affirming that the April 6, 2015 judgment remains final.

The appellant, referred to as Father, claims the court has jurisdiction based on the trial court's discretion to consider the untimely motion. He argues that since the court found the untimeliness harmless and did not raise jurisdictional issues, the motion should be deemed preserved. However, he fails to convince the court, as Rule 6(b)(2) explicitly prohibits the district court from addressing untimely motions, rendering the district court's actions erroneous and non-waivable. Father’s reliance on cases that discuss inherent court powers and discretion does not apply here, as the rule mandates strict adherence that cannot be overlooked. Thus, the appeal's jurisdiction hinges on compliance with procedural timelines, which Father did not meet.

The district court improperly classified the father's Rule 59 motion as timely, which was actually untimely according to procedural rules, necessitating its denial. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the district court's October 27, 2015 order. The deadline for filing a notice of appeal was not extended, starting from the original judgment date of April 6, 2015, making the father's notice of appeal filed on November 25, 2015, also untimely and invalidating the court's jurisdiction over the case. 

The juvenile court had found that the mother substantially prevailed in her claims regarding custody and visitation rights and awarded her reasonable attorney fees and costs associated with enforcing the Decree of Divorce. Citing precedent, the court confirmed that prevailing parties in domestic cases are typically entitled to attorney fees on appeal. The mother explicitly requested these fees, providing a legal basis for the request, leading to the award of attorney fees and costs for her success in the juvenile court and on appeal.

The court ruled that the father’s Rule 59(e) motion was barred as untimely, affirming the April 6, 2015 judgment as the operative order. The ruling clarified that an untimely motion does not extend the appeal filing period, resulting in the father's appeal being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the district court to determine the specific amount of attorney fees and costs owed to the mother.

Jurisdiction is a fundamental issue that must be addressed before considering the merits of any claims, as established in Am. W. Bank Members, L.C. v. State. The final judgment rule prevents premature appeals of non-final judgments to conserve judicial resources, with the ability to challenge jurisdiction lapsing after the last opportunity to appeal on specific issues. This aligns with the res judicata doctrine, which bars claims following a final judgment on the merits from a prior case. 

Prior to 2014, parties had 10 days to file a motion under Rule 59, which was extended to 28 days in 2016, with exceptions for self-represented parties and approved hardship exemptions. Rule 7 underwent significant changes in 2015 and 2017, clarifying court discretion in managing its docket. 

While clerical errors do not invalidate motions, substantive compliance with procedural requirements is necessary. The language surrounding jurisdiction has been inconsistent in precedent, with distinctions made between different aspects of jurisdiction. Timely filing of appeals is mandatory to establish appellate subject matter jurisdiction, which refers to a court's authority to hear specific types of cases.

Jurisdiction cannot be established by the consent of the parties, and a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is unable to adjudicate an action. The case State v. Smith illustrates a broader understanding of subject matter jurisdiction, indicating that procedural errors, such as defective information, do not equate to a lack of jurisdiction. The distinction between "appellate jurisdiction" and "subject matter jurisdiction" is clarified in Utah law, whereby appellate jurisdiction refers to the authority of an appellate court, as defined by the Utah Constitution or statutes, to review lower court decisions. The allocation of appellate jurisdiction is detailed in Utah Code sections 78A-3-102 and 78A-4-103. The court of appeals failed to consider the Utah Arbitration Act, which allows appeals from orders denying motions to compel arbitration. While the term "appellate jurisdiction" has not been specifically defined under the Utah Constitution, it generally pertains to the review of decisions from inferior courts. Appellate jurisdiction entails the authority to review, affirm, modify, or reverse decisions made by lower tribunals based on the existing record, emphasizing that it does not create new causes of action. Recent interpretations have expanded the definition of appellate jurisdiction to include substantive defects in appeals.

An order not specified in the notice of appeal is outside the appellate jurisdiction, and the failure to identify such an order constitutes a non-waivable jurisdictional defect. Subject matter jurisdiction can be limited by statute, and it is defined by the authority granted by law. When assessing jurisdiction, courts must determine if they have the authority to address the merits of a case, even if they possess appellate jurisdiction under statute. This evaluation is essential and should be conducted at the beginning of a case. Courts have a duty to address jurisdictional issues independently, regardless of whether the parties raise them. The timeliness of filing an appeal is crucial for establishing subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to timely perfect an appeal results in a jurisdictional failure that necessitates dismissal. Thus, while the distinction between appellate jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction is acknowledged, the focus remains on the jurisdictional implications of the appeal's timeliness.