Husband (H) and Wife’s (W) marriage was irretrievably broken. H had confessed to W certain unsavory behavior on his part that occurred during the marriage.
W told H that he must sign the divorce papers she had prepared, or else she would report his behavior to the authorities and his life would be shattered. H complied and signed the papers.
Several months later, experiencing the inevitable wave of buyer’s remorse that accompanies agreeing to an unfavorable divorce, H filed a motion to set aside the Decree pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 60(b) is an interesting animal. It provides that a final judgment or order may be set aside for a number of enumerated reasons, including inadvertence, mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct of the opposing party.
A 60(b)-motion based on one of these enumerated reasons must be brought within ninety days of entry of the judgment or order.
However, there is also a catch-all provision. Rule 60(b)(6) provides that a motion may be brought for “any other reason that justifies relief.” A motion brought under this provision is not limited by the ninety-day time requirement.
H filed his 60(b) motion more than ninety days after entry of the Decree of Divorce.
In his motion, H alleged that W had blackmailed and extorted him into signing the divorce papers and that the Decree should be set aside based on duress.
The trial court rejected H’s motion on the basis that it was time barred. It was a motion alleging misconduct on the part of the opposing party, one of the enumerated reasons that must be brought within 90 days of the order.
H appealed. In his appeal he argued that the trial court had failed in its duty to ensure that the divorce was equitable and ensured the best interests of the children. But H had not preserved this issue for appeal by articulating it to the trial court in such a way as to allow the court to rule on it with specificity. Therefore, his appeal failed.
This case illustrates the need to carefully preserve issues for appeal in the trial court. Issues not preserved in the trial court will not be heard on appeal.
The case also shows the difficulty of relying on the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b), which requires a showing of exceptional or unusual circumstances in order to justify relief from a judgment or order. It is much easier to simply bring the motion within 90 days of entry of the judgment or order.
See Horne v. Horne, 22 UT App. 54.
This material should not be construed as legal advice for any particular fact situation but is intended for general informational purposes only. For advice specific to any individual situation, an experienced attorney should be contacted
