2015 UT App 20

_________________________________________________________



### T H E 

### U TA H 

### C O U RT O F 

### A P P E A L S

D AR L A K A Y S H E D R

O N -E A S L E Y Peti tioner and Appellant,

v
. S TANL E Y B R

YAN E A S L E Y Respondent and Appellee.

Per CuriamDeci si on No. 20130509-CA Filed J anuary 29, 2015

Fifth Di stric t Co urt, Cedar Ci ty Depar tment The Honorable G. Michael Westfall
Darla Kay S hedron-Easley, Appellant Pro S e
Before J UD G E S J. F RE D E RI C V O R O S J R ., S T E P H E N L. R OT H , and J O H N A. P E ARC E

.

PER CURIAM :
¶1 Darla Kay Shedro n-Eas ley appealsthe di stric t court ’s May 1, 2013 or der denyi ng her rule 60(b) motion for relief fr o m judgment. We affi rm.
¶2 “A tr i al court has di screti on i n d eter mining whether a movant has s hown rule 60(b) gr ounds, and thi s court wi ll rev erse t he t rial court only when there has been an abus e of di screti on.” Franklin Covey Clien t Sales, Inc., v. Melvin , 2000 UT App 110, ¶ 9, 2 P.3d 451. Thi s court rev i ews a di stric t court’s deni al of a rule 60(b) motion for an abus e of di screti on becau se “most are equi table i n nature, saturated wi th facts, and call upon judges to apply fund amental prin ci ples of fai rness that do not easi ly lend themselves to appellate r eview.” Kell v. State, 2012 UT 25, ¶ 7, 285 P.3d 1133.Shedron-Easley v. Easley

¶3 A bi furcated di vo r ce decree was enter ed on January 25, 2002. The dis tr i ct co urt noted that there were nearly a dozen tr i al dates set i n thi s matter , and for var i ous reasons, th e r e ma i ning i ssu es set for tr ia l we r e conti nually delayed. In one instance, Ms. Shedro n-Eas ley fi led a motion to di squali fy the di stric t court judge moments after the tr i al was set t o begi n. The tr i al was conti nued

once more and set for January 5, 2012. O n Ja nu a r y 5, 2012, approx i mately ten minutes before tr i al, a court employee received

a telephone call from an i ndi vidu al i denti fyi ng herself a s M s. Shedro n-Eas ley’s a s s i s tan t. Th e in d i vi d u a l s ta ted that Ms. Shedro nEasley was havin g anxi ety o r so me other medi cal i ssu e, and that she would not a p pear for tr i al becau se she was going to the hospi tal. The di stric t court found that Ms. Shedro n-Eas ley had ample notic e of tr i al and that a telephone call, wi thou t me d i cal

ev ide nce, was an i nadequate basi s to postpone tr i al. The di stric t court also deter mined that, given the case hi stor y, and the fact that the i ssu es before the court had been addressed i n the pleadings, i t
was appropr i ate to proceed wi thout Ms. Shedro n-Eas ley. On October 8, 2012, the di stric t court ent ered a j udgment again st Ms. Shedro n-Eas ley.

¶4 Ms. Shedro n-Eas ley moved t o set asi de the judgment pursuant to r ule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Ci vil P ro cedure, ci tin g excusab le neglect. During the hearin g on the rule 60(b) motion, the di stric t court explain ed that M s. Shedro n-Eas ley had fai led to prov i de s u ffi c i e n t e vi d e n c e e s ta b l i shing that she was sufferin g from

a medi cal problem that would have prohibi ted her at t endance at tr i al. The di stric t court deter mine d that i f i t had been presented wi th appr o p r iate evidenc e that Ms. Shedro n-Eas ley was actually i ncapac i tate d, for reasons other than her subjective perception of a medi cal problem, the court would have g ranted t he motion to set asi de the judgment. Instead, the di stric t co ur t found that the evidenc e demonstrate d only that Ms. She d ro n-Eas ley had exper i enced anxi ety about going to tr i al, whi ch was an i nsu ffi ci ent basi s to set asi de the judgment. Ms. S he dron-Easley fai ls to

20130509-CA 2 2015 UT App 20Shedron-Easley v. Easley

demonstrate that the di stric t court abus ed i ts di screti on by denyi ng her mot i on for r eli ef from judgment.

¶5 Affi rmed.

20130509-CA 3 2015 UT App 20