Opinion ID: 2773704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the district court correctly denied mr.

Text: MIGLIORE’S RENEWED RULE 60(b) MOTION ¶23 The basis of Mr. Migliore’s renewed rule 60(b) motion was that he was denied due process of law in the original summary judgment proceedings and that the judgment was therefore void. Specifically, Mr. Migliore argued that he was deprived of notice, denied the opportunity to respond to Livingston’s claims, and denied a fair opportunity to submit evidence. ¶24 Rule 60(b)(4) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to seek relief from “a final judgment, order, or proceeding” if “the judgment is void.” A rule 60(b) motion must normally be brought within ninety days after the judgment was entered. See UTAH R. CIV . P. 60(b). “But where the judgment is void . . . the time limitations of [r]ule 60(b) have no application.” Garcia v. Garcia, 712 P.2d 288, 290 (Utah 1986) (reversing denial of rule 60(b) motion when underlying judgment was void for want of service); see also CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, 11 FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2862 (3d ed. 2012) (“[T]here is no time limit on an attack on a judgment as void.”). Thus, though Mr. Migliore’s renewed rule 60(b) motion was brought nearly two years after entry of summary judgment, it is not time barred. ¶25 Normally, the district court’s denial of a rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 UT 28, 8 Cite as: 2015 UT 9 Opinion of the Court ¶ 6, 234 P.3d 1100. But the district court has no discretion with respect to a void judgment because the determination that a judgment is void implicates the court’s jurisdiction. See Jackson Const. Co. v. Marrs, 2004 UT 89, ¶ 8, 100 P.3d 1211. Accordingly, “the propriety of [the] jurisdictional determination, and hence the decision not to vacate, becomes a question of law upon which we do not defer to the district court.” Johnson, 2010 UT 28, ¶ 6 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Hukill v. Okla. Native Am. Domestic Violence Coal., 542 F.3d 794, 797 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Where [r]ule 60(b)(4) is properly invoked, relief is not a discretionary matter; it is mandatory and, accordingly, our review is de novo.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). ¶26 Turning to the merits of the rule 60(b) denial, we narrowly construe the concept of a void judgment in the interest of finality. Brimhall v. Mecham, 494 P.2d 525, 526 (Utah 1972). “A judgment is not void merely because it is erroneous.” WRIGHT & MILLER, supra, § 2862. Rather, a “judgment is void under rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or parties, or the judgment was entered without the notice required by due process.” Judson v. Wheeler RV Las Vegas, L.L.C., 2012 UT 6, ¶ 18, 270 P.3d 456 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Migliore did not challenge the district court’s jurisdiction. As such, his renewed rule 60(b)(4) challenge relied solely on the argument that summary judgment was rendered in violation of his due process rights. ¶27 “Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 272 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (holding that due process was satisfied when a party had actual notice, despite not being properly served with summons and complaint). The record demonstrates that Mr. Migliore had actual notice of all of Livingston’s claims and ample opportunity to submit evidence in his defense. Mr. Migliore attached a copy of the summons and complaint to his motion for a more definite statement, demonstrating that he was on notice of Livingston’s claims. Moreover, Mr. Migliore received Livingston’s discovery requests. He responded to the requests for admission by denying them on the basis that he lacked the information to answer. As to Livingston’s interrogatories and requests for production, Mr. Migliore stated in his first rule 60(b) motion that he simply “forgot” to respond because the summons and complaint had been served “months earlier” and 9 MIGLIORE v. LIVINGSTON FIN ., LLC Opinion of the Court he had “made a mistake of assuming there had been no initial service.” Thus, the evidence on the record clearly indicates that Mr. Migliore had notice of Livingston’s claims and an opportunity to respond. ¶28 It was only after the district court entered summary judgment that Mr. Migliore raised the possibility that the credit account at issue might belong to his father. And although Mr. Migliore attempted to excuse his failure to participate in discovery by asserting that he had been hospitalized shortly after being served with Livingston’s complaint, there is no evidence in the record that Mr. Migliore contacted the district court to request an extension or that his illness was so severe that he was unable to do so. See Black’s Title, Inc. v. Utah State Ins. Dep’t, 1999 UT App 330, ¶ 10, 991 P.2d 607 (noting that a party cannot demonstrate excusable neglect under rule 60(b) merely by claiming illness). ¶29 In summary, Mr. Migliore’s renewed rule 60(b) challenge merely reflects his disagreement with the underlying merits of the original summary judgment determination. He provides nothing to support his claim that the underlying judgment was void. Rule 60(b) does not provide an alternative vehicle for challenging the merits of a judgment that are more properly addressed through normal appellate review. Rather, a judgment is void only if the rendering court lacked authority. And there is no basis here for concluding that Mr. Migliore was deprived of his due process rights to notice of, or an opportunity to respond to, Livingston’s claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Mr. Migliore’s renewed rule 60(b) motion. We now turn to Mr. Migliore’s claim that the court of appeals erred when it affirmed the district court’s award of attorney fees pursuant to section 78B-5-825 of the Utah Code.