The Silva’s divorced in 2010. They owned fifteen parcels of land which the court needed to divide equitably. Each party was ordered to execute quit claim deeds in order to effectuate the court’s order.

David brought an order to show case after to compel Bonnie to sign a quit claim deed to a West Valley property. She did so, but David later found out there was a mistake in the deed and that the property was titled in the name of a trust. Bonnie and of her daughters later transfer the property again to her daughter as trustee of the trust.

David obtained a judgment for the value of the house in divorce court. Then he brought a separate action against Bonnie and her daughter for fraudulent conveyance and quiet title.

David obtained an order for alternate service, alleging he had made numerous unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Bonnie.

After David completed alternate service as ordered by the court and Bonnet failed to file an answer, the court entered Bonnie’s default and set a hearing for determining damages.

The court ordered David to make additional efforts to serve Bonnie with the notice of hearing, but personal service was never accomplished.

Following the hearing the court entered judgment against Bonnie in favor of David and issued a writ of execution for three of Bonnie’s properties, including the West Valley property.

Later that month Bonnie filed a rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment based on a lack of personal service. In support our her motion she alleged that after a 13 year marriage, David knew her e-mail address and phone number, as well as contact information for their adult child and through reasonably diligent efforts could have given her actual notice of the action. The trial court judge denied the motion.

There was later a sheriff’s sale of all three properties pursuant to the writ of execution.

Bonnie filed a motion for temporary restraining order (TRO), a motion to invalidate the sheriff’s sale, and a motion to join the sale purchasers to the action.

At a hearing, the court denied the TRO motion and the motion to void the sale on the grounds that proper notice of the sale had been given. Bonnie appealed.

The Court of Appeals held that there had not been proper service on Bonnie and that, therefore, the judgment was void. This was because David’s service attempts had not been reasonably calculated to give Bonnie actual notice of the proceedings.

Because the judgment was void, the sheriff’s sale had been ineffective to transfer title to the purchasers. This was so even if the buyers were bona purchaser for value. This is because the bona fide purchase for value doctrine does not apply where there is a void deed.

See Silva v. Silva, 2017 UT App. 125.

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.