Robinson v. Baggett

• Decision Date: 04 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 20100197–CA.,20100197–CA.
• Parties: Randy L. ROBINSON, Petitioner and Appellee,v.Alexander Earl BAGGETT, Respondent and Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

263 P.3d 411

688 Utah Adv. Rep. 39

2011 UT App 250

Randy L. ROBINSON, Petitioner and Appellee,

v.Alexander Earl BAGGETT, Respondent and Appellant.

No. 20100197–CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Aug. 4, 2011.

Mitchell S. Maio, Michael K. Mohrman, and Tracy C. Schofield, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.Frederick N. Green, Sandy, for Appellee.Before Judges DAVIS, McHUGH, and VOROS.

OPINION

McHUGH, Associate Presiding Judge:

¶ 1 Alexander Earl Baggett (Husband) appeals the trial court's denial of his motion under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure following the entry of an Amended Supplemental Decree of Divorce and the related findings of fact and conclusions of law (Amended Decree) in his divorce from Randy L. Robinson (Wife).¹ We reverse and remand.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Husband and Wife were married in Utah on December 31, 1995. The couple has one child together, who is still a minor. Wife filed for divorce on March 26, 2003. The parties stipulated, and the trial court ordered, that Husband would pay temporary support to Wife beginning on June 1, 2003, including child support, mortgage payments on the marital home, and temporary alimony of $2,909 per month (the Temporary Order). A trial was held before Judge Stephen L. Roth in June 2005, at which time the proceedings were bifurcated. Judge Roth granted the divorce on June 29, 2005, but provided that “[a]ll other matters associated with this divorce, including child support, alimony, property distribution, allocation of debts, attorney[ ] fees and any other matter argued before this court at trial ... shall be reserved for final ruling by this court.” The parties' marriage lasted for a total of 114 months.

¶ 3 On January 4, 2006, Judge Roth issued a Memorandum Decision explaining his decisions regarding custody of the parties' child, child support, division of property and debt, and alimony. Judge Roth awarded Wife alimony in the net amount of $1,882 per month, stating, “That Sum is payable for a period equal to the length of the marriage,” i.e., 114 months. He instructed the parties to calculate the amount of alimony Husband would need to pay so that, after taxes, Wife would receive $1,882 and to include that gross amount in their proposed findings. In addition, because Husband had only paid approximately two-thirds of the amount due under the Temporary Order, Judge Roth concluded that it was “reasonable and equitable that only one year of the pre-trial period be counted as having fulfilled [Husband's] alimony obligation.” ² Judge Roth ordered Wife's attorney “to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law and an order that put into effect this Decision,” and indicated that it “should include additional findings and conclusions from the evidence presented reasonably necessary to support the court's ruling or to include other necessary and customary provisions.”

¶ 4 For the next eight months, the parties attempted unsuccessfully to agree upon the terms of the proposed order and the supporting findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties submitted their respective positions on a number of disputed issues to the court on September 1, 2006, and argued the issues at a hearing before Judge Roth on July 11, 2007 (2007 Hearing). At the 2007 Hearing, the parties first discussed the date on which the parties' retirement accounts would be divided. Wife's attorney urged Judge Roth to take into account Husband's failure to meet his support obligations under the Temporary Order in determining the effective date for the division of marital property. Judge Roth considered Wife's concerns and stated generally that “my decision will take effect as of the date the supplemental decree was signed,” ³ except that the retirement accounts would be divided as of the date of his January 4, 2006 Memorandum Decision.

¶ 5 Later in the proceedings, the parties specifically addressed the issue of alimony. The parties stipulated at the 2007 Hearing that alimony would last for 102 months, which is the length of the 114–month marriage less the year credit Husband received for making partial payments under the Temporary Order. The parties then addressed the effective date of the permanent alimony award. Specifically, Wife questioned whether there should be an order addressing the temporary alimony arrearages accumulated during the interim between the June 2005 trial and the 2007 Hearing and if so, whether they should be calculated based on the higher award in the Temporary Order or based upon the permanent support award in Judge Roth's January 4, 2006 Memorandum Decision. Wife argued that Husband should not get the benefit of the lower alimony payments awarded under the Memorandum Decision because he had not been paying his share of marital debt as ordered by that decision. Therefore, Wife suggested that the lower permanent alimony amount not begin until Husband began paying toward the marital debt. Although Judge Roth acknowledged Wife's concern, he rejected Wife's suggestions regarding the commencement of the remaining 102 months of alimony. Instead, referring to his January 4, 2006 Memorandum Decision, Judge Roth stated, “It seems to me that my ruling—that my order ought to take place as of the date of the ruling, that the—it will be the gross amount of that [$]1,882 as of January.” He further clarified,

And that would take—that would satisfy, it seems to me, my concerns about what's happened here, while still making implementation of my ruling, which was thought out in some length in terms of what was appropriate in terms of child support and—and alimony and put that into place. The concern I have is just continuing the temporary order because it also continues amounts of child support—and alimony, which I calculated on a much more detailed basis than is under the temporary orders....

Judge Roth's reference to the precise dollar figure of the net alimony award, $1,882, as well as the reference to his January ruling, leave little doubt that he ordered permanent alimony to run for 102 additional months, beginning on January 4, 2006—the date of his Memorandum Decision. Judge Roth again instructed the parties to prepare an order reflecting his rulings.

¶ 6 After several more months of negotiations in an attempt to memorialize Judge Roth's rulings and to resolve other issues left open at the 2007 Hearing, Wife served Husband with a copy of the proposed Amended Decree on March 5, 2008. Husband notified Wife of his intention to object but failed to do so within the time provided by the parties' correspondence. Because she had not received any formal objections to the Amended Decree, Wife submitted it to the court on April 3, 2008. By this time, Judge Robert P. Faust was assigned to serve as the trial judge on the case as the successor to Judge Roth. Seeing that no objections had been filed within the five days provided by rule 7(f)(2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Faust entered the Amended Decree on April 11, 2008. One of the provisions of the Amended Decree provided that Husband was to pay $2,499 ⁴ per month as alimony to Wife for a period of 102 months to begin on the date that the Amended Decree was entered, April 11, 2008. Because Judge Roth's ruling at the 2007 Hearing ordered the 102 months of permanent alimony to begin as of the date of the January 4, 2006 Memorandum Decision, the Amended Decree provided Wife with twenty-eight extra months of permanent alimony.

¶ 7 On April 28, 2008, Husband filed a motion for rule 59(e) or rule 60(b) relief (First Rule 60(b) Motion). As an addendum to the First Rule 60(b) Motion, Husband's attorney submitted an affidavit stating that on April 4, 2008, his office received a copy of the Amended Decree and notice that it had been submitted to the court but that he had not seen it until April 28, 2008. Husband's attorney indicated that he is not certain why he did not see the letter, but also noted that he was moving offices during that time. Husband argued that he was entitled to relief under rule 59(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure based on irregularity in the proceedings, see Utah R. Civ. P. 59(a)-(a)(1) (providing that a court may grant a new trial, amend or make new findings of fact and conclusions of law, or direct the entry of a new judgment based on “[i]rregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury or adverse party, or any order of the court, or abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial”), or because of accident or surprise, see id. R. 59(a)(3) (granting relief under rule 59 for “[a]ccident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against”). Specifically, he asserted that the entry of the Amended Decree was irregular because it did not accurately represent the stipulations of the parties and Judge Roth's rulings and because “the process by which the [Amended Decree] was presented to the Court was irregular.” Husband further argued that he was entitled to rule 59(e) relief because of the accident or surprise that resulted from the misplacement of the letter during the move of his attorney's office. In the alternative, Husband argued that he was entitled to relief under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure based on “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” for essentially the same reasons. See id. R. 60(b) (providing that “[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may in the furtherance of justice relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for several enumerated reasons, including “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect”).

¶ 8 In a minute entry dated June 27, 2008, Judge Faust denied the First Rule 60(b) Motion, ruling that Husband's motion was untimely under rule 59(e), see id. R. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after the entry of judgment.”), and that his “failure to timely object to the proposed Amended...