2015 UT App 20

_________________________________________________________

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

DARLA KAY SHEDRON-EASLEY

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STANLEY BRYAN EASLEY

Respondent and Appellee.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20130509-CA

Filed January 29, 2015

Fifth District Court, Cedar City Department

The Honorable G. Michael Westfall

Darla Kay Shedron-Easley, Appellant Pro Se

Before JUDGES J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., STEPHEN L. ROTH, and

JOHN A. PEARCE.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Darla Kay Shedron-Easley appeals the district court’s May

1, 2013 order denying her rule 60(b) motion for relief from

judgment. We affirm.

¶2 “A trial court has discretion in determining whether a

movant has shown rule 60(b) grounds, and this court will reverse

the trial court only when there has been an abuse of discretion.”

Franklin Covey Client Sales, Inc., v. Melvin, 2000 UT App 110, ¶ 9, 2

P.3d 451. This court reviews a district court’s denial of a rule 60(b)

motion for an abuse of discretion because “most are equitable in

nature, saturated with facts, and call upon judges to apply

fundamental principles of fairness that do not easily lend

themselves to appellate review.” Kell v. State, 2012 UT 25, ¶ 7, 285

P.3d 1133. 
Shedron-Easley v. Easley

¶3 A bifurcated divorce decree was entered on January 25,

2002. The district court noted that there were nearly a dozen trial

dates set in this matter, and for various reasons, the remaining

issues set for trial were continually delayed. In one instance, Ms.

Shedron-Easley filed a motion to disqualify the district court judge

moments after the trial was set to begin. The trial was continued

once more and set for January 5, 2012. On January 5, 2012,

approximately ten minutes before trial, a court employee received

a telephone call from an individual identifying herself as Ms.

Shedron-Easley’s assistant.The individual stated that Ms. ShedronEasley was having anxiety or some other medical issue, and that

she would not appear for trial because she was going to the

hospital. The district court found that Ms. Shedron-Easley had

ample notice of trial and that a telephone call, without medical

evidence, was an inadequate basis to postpone trial. The district

court also determined that, given the case history, and the fact that

the issues before the court had been addressed in the pleadings, it

was appropriate to proceed without Ms. Shedron-Easley. On

October 8, 2012, the district court entered a judgment against Ms.

Shedron-Easley. 

¶4 Ms. Shedron-Easley moved to set aside the judgment

pursuant to rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, citing

excusable neglect. During the hearing on the rule 60(b) motion, the

district court explained that Ms. Shedron-Easley had failed to

provide sufficient evidence establishing that she was suffering from

a medical problem that would have prohibited her attendance at

trial. The district court determined that if it had been presented

with appropriate evidence that Ms. Shedron-Easley was actually

incapacitated, for reasons other than her subjective perception of a

medical problem, the court would have granted the motion to set

aside the judgment. Instead, the district court found that the

evidence demonstrated only that Ms. Shedron-Easley had

experienced anxiety about going to trial, which was an insufficient

basis to set aside the judgment. Ms. Shedron-Easley fails to

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

demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by denying

her motion for relief from judgment.

¶5 Affirmed. 

20130509-CA 3 2015 UT App 20