Richins v. Delbert Chipman & Sons Co., Inc.

• Citation: 817 P.2d 382
• Decision Date: 14 August 1991
• Docket Number: No. 900134-CA,900134-CA
• Parties: Dennis J. RICHINS and Suesann Richins, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. DELBERT CHIPMAN & SONS CO., INC.; and D. Ray Chipman, individually, Defendants and Appellants, and Richard Porter; Kenneth Porter; and John Does 1 through 10, Defendants and Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Utah

Page 382

817 P.2d 382

Dennis J. RICHINS and Suesann Richins, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. DELBERT CHIPMAN & SONS CO., INC.; and D. Ray Chipman individually, Defendants and Appellants and Richard Porter; Kenneth Porter; and John Does 1 through 10, Defendants and Appellees.

No. 900134-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Aug. 14, 1991.

Ralph J. Marsh (argued), Backman, Clark & Marsh, Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.

James R. Brown (argued), Jardine, Linebaugh, Brown & Dunn, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellees.

George A. Hunt (argued), Williams & Hunt, Salt Lake City, for Porter.

Before GARFF, JACKSON and ORME, JJ.

OPINION

GARFF, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a motion for relief from judgment. Appellant challenges the trial court's finding that he entered into a valid stipulation, which the court approved. Appellant also challenges the court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over his motion to set aside because it was untimely filed under Utah R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). We affirm.

On October 30, 1986, appellants Delbert Chipman & Sons Co., and D. Ray Chipman (collectively Chipman) sold and leased grazing permits to appellees, Dennis and Suesann Richins (collectively Richins). Some six months later, on April 27, 1987, Chipman sold and leased parts of the same grazing permits to coappellees, Richard and Kenneth Porter (collectively Porter). On May 6, 1987, Richins filed suit against Chipman and Porter to settle the dispute over who rightfully possessed the grazing rights.

At the bench trial, held December 21, 1987, Richins presented his case in chief, after which the court recessed for lunch. When the court reconvened, the parties announced that they had reached a settlement agreement. With Chipman and his confidant Dr. Osguthorpe present, the stipulation for settlement and judgment was read into the record. The following exchange then ensued:

MR. WOOTON [Counsel for Chipman]: Mr. Chipman you have been in court and listened to that stipulation have you not sir?

MR. CHIPMAN: What stipulation.

MR. WOOTON: The one Mr. Brown just stated into the record?

MR. CHIPMAN: Well I don't understand it.

MR. WOOTON: Well have you been in here and you understand it?

MR. CHIPMAN: I have been in here a long time and I don't quite understand it but I guess it is all right.

MR. WOOTON: All right Mr.

Os[gu]thorpe you are Mr. Chipman's friend?

MR. OSGUTHORPE: Yes.

MR. WOOTON: You have been in the courtroom and heard it too?

MR. OSGUTHORPE: Yes.

MR. WOOTON: And do you think it is reasonable?

MR. OSGUTHORPE: Yes.

The parties' attorneys reduced the stipulation to writing, signed it, and the court entered an order enforcing the terms of the stipulation. Subsequently, substantial sums of money were distributed to Chipman and to Porter under the terms of the stipulation, and the parties otherwise performed pursuant to its terms for over a year. Indeed, in subsequent correspondence, Chipman specifically invoked portions of the stipulation.

On March 9, 1989, Chipman filed a series of motions styled "Motions to Enforce Termination of Lease Pursuant to Stipulation in Court or, in the Alternative, to Set Aside or to Reform Stipulation, Stipulation for Settlement and Judgment, and Judgment." Richins moved to dismiss Chipman's motions.

The court found that Chipman had entered into a valid stipulation upon which the previous judgment rested. ¹ The court then ruled that Chipman's motions to set aside or to reform the stipulation for settlement and judgment constituted a motion for relief from judgment under Utah R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion because it was not filed until long after the three month period prescribed by Rule 60(b)(1). Finally, the court declined to consider the motion to enforce termination of the lease, ruling that such relief could only be obtained collaterally by filing a separate complaint.

Chipman appeals, arguing that he neither understood nor consented to the stipulation and that therefore he was entitled to relief under subsections (5), (6), or (7), which need be filed only within a reasonable time, rather than under subsection (1), which must be filed within three months after the judgment.

STIPULATION

We first consider whether the court clearly erred in finding that the parties' stipulation was valid. We will set aside a finding only if it is clearly erroneous. Utah R.Civ.P. 52(a); Hoth v. White, 799 P.2d 213, 216 (Utah App.1990).

The stipulation was entered after the court had heard Richins's case in chief. The court heard the parties discuss the proposed stipulation and read it into the record. The court questioned both counsel and the parties to ascertain whether they understood it. The court then found that the stipulation was a fair and accurate representation of the parties' agreement, and entered its order pursuant to the stipulation.

When Chipman brought his motion to set aside the judgment, the same judge had another opportunity to review whether the parties had in fact entered into a valid stipulation. This time, the court recalled the circumstances leading up to the stipulation, the discussions held in court, and the demeanor of the parties involved. In addition, the record contained the written stipulation, which was signed by all counsel. Based on these factors, the court found that Chipman had understood the stipulation sufficiently, and that he had agreed to it. The trial court's independent recollection of the original proceedings, combined with the evidence in the record, support our conclusion that the trial judge, who had two opportunities to consider the issue, did not clearly err in finding that Chipman entered into the stipulation. Further, we note that "[t]here is an institutional hesitancy to relieve a party from a stipulation negotiated and entered into with the advice of counsel." Birch v. Birch, 771 P.2d 1114, 1116 (Utah App.1989).

RULE 60(b)

Chipman next argues that the trial court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion to set aside because the motion was untimely filed under Utah R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). This argument raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court correctly characterized Chipman's motion, filed fifteen months after judgment was entered, as a Rule 60(b)(1) motion rather than a Rule 60(b)(5), (6), or (7) motion; and, (2) assuming the trial court's characterization of the motion was correct, whether the court abused its discretion in dismissing the motion.

Rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provides for relief from a final judgment:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may in the furtherance of justice relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; ... (5) the judgment is void; (6) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (7) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time and for reason[ ] (1) ... not more than 3 months after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.

The trial court's determination that Chipman's motion was a Rule 60(b)(1) motion rather than a Rule 60(b)(5), (6), or (7) motion constitutes a conclusion of law. "We accord conclusions of law no particular deference, but review them for correctness." Scharf v. BMG Corp., 700 P.2d 1068, 1070 (Utah 1985).

Given that Chipman filed his motion more than fifteen months after the judgment was entered, it is understandable that he should prefer to characterize it as a Rule 60(b)(5), (6), or (7) motion rather than a Rule 60(b)(1) motion.

Rule 60(b)(5).

Chipman argues that Rule 60(b)(5), which governs void judgments, applies because the fact that the stipulation was void renders the judgment void. This argument confuses void judgments with voidable judgments: "[A] judgment is not void merely because it is erroneous or because some irregularity inhered in its rendition. It is void only if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or of the parties or if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process." Automatic Feeder Co. v. Tobey, 221 Kan. 17, 558 P.2d 101, 104 (1976) (emphasis added). Nothing in the record indicates that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties or was otherwise incompetent to render judgment. The court therefore correctly concluded that Chipman was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(5).

Rule 60(b)(6).

Chipman argues that Rule 60(b)(6), which permits relief when prospective application of the judgment is inequitable, is applicable to his case. The third clause of subsection (6) is most commonly invoked to prospectively terminate injunctions. See Laub v. South Cent. Utah Tel. Ass'n, 657 P.2d 1304, 1306 (Utah 1982). The United States Supreme Court held that the federal equivalent of the rule, Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5), may be used to set aside only those prospective features of a decree whose application is no longer equitable:

There is need to keep in mind steadily the limits of inquiry proper to the case before us. We are not framing a decree.

We are asking ourselves whether anything has happened that will justify us now in changing a decree. The injunction, whether right or wrong, is not subject to impeachment in its application to the conditions that existed at its making. We are not at liberty to reverse under the guise of readjusting.

United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 119, 52 S.Ct. 460, 464, 76 L.Ed. 999 (1932) (emphasis added). Thus the analysis is whether the judgment has prospective application and whether subsequent events have occurred making...