Opinion ID: 170799
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Utah's Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) Motion

Text: On July 7, 2003, Utah moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside the 4,481 Stipulation and the judgment quieting title in the Clingers. Utah explained that when its counsel entered into the 4,481 Stipulation, state land officials had not understood that the assignment of claims or interests from the United States had not included lands in the Powell Slough. To their surprise, the limited extent of the federal assignment of claims that excluded the Powell Slough, combined with the unlimited extent of the 4481 stipulation that included the lakebed below the Powell Slough, meant the State could not stop Powell Slough area defendants from quieting title down to the 4481 level, thanks to the 4481 Stipulation. Aplt's App. vol. II, at 623. In light of the land officials' lack of knowledge, Utah maintained, its former counsel (an Assistant Attorney General) lacked actual or apparent authority to enter into the stipulation and judgment. See id. at 647, 649 (arguing that State Lands officials never manifested an intent to permit lead counsel to [enter into the stipulation] and that there is no evidence that State Lands Officials did anything to cause defendants or their counsel to think the State lead counsel had authority to sign the 4481 Stipulation). Utah further argued that the stipulation and order were manifestly unjust, interfered with the public trust, and intruded on the court's province. The district court denied Utah's request to set aside the 4,481 Stipulation. However, it granted Utah's motion to set aside the resulting judgment. The distinction was based upon the court's view of the limited effect of the Stipulation on the one hand, and, in contrast, the sweeping and final effect of the resulting judgment. As to the 4481 Stipulation, the court explained, its language does not preclude the State from putting on evidence to counter [it]. It also does not preclude the landowners from putting on further evidence to support the 4481 level if they have such evidence. Aplt's App. vol. III, at 800. In contrast, there were good grounds for vacating the judgment quieting title in the Clingers. Such a judgment, the court reasoned, requires the consent of the client, which was lacking here. Id. at 805. The State's prior counsel did not have the authority to enter into the Stipulation and Judgment with the Clingers without the approval of State land officials. Id. Further, the court said, [it][did] not find any prejudice in returning the Clingers to the position of the other remaining landowners who must complete the process of determining the correct boundary of their respective properties. Id. Additionally, to the extent that the Clinger stipulation and judgment relied on the 4481 Stipulation, it relied on an improper construction of the language of the 4481 Stipulation. Id.