Court Opinion

ID: 9630155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:03:04.491054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:32.681119
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring in' result) .
I concur in the result and agree with the principle enunciated by Mr. Justice WADE to the effect that a signed statement admitting service of process satisfies Rule 4 (g) (the signer thus submitting himself to the court’s jurisdiction), but I cannot concur with the reasons assigned by the main opinion why the judgment should have been vacated.
The only determinative point on appeal is whether or not defendant should have been relieved of a default judgment because of excusable neglect. The main opinion says the judgment should have been set aside because the copy of the summons received by defendant was not a true copy in that it did not advise whether a complaint had been filed or would be filed within ten days. I cannot see how this circumstance possibly *419could be ground for vacating the judgment on the basis of excusable neglect, since, at the worst, defendant could assume only that the complaint would be filed within ten days and it would be a simple matter to check to determine if the filing had been made within that time,. after which the defendant would have ten days to plead if it had been filed. Failure to make such inquiry hardly could be said to be excusable. neglect.
However, it appears that the copy of the summons bore a case number different from that on the complaint and court records, that the defendant left the state the day after he was served, and that he took steps to request the vacation of the judgment as soon as he learned of it. The case number on the summons was one that had been assigned to a case which touched the same subject matter, but in which no action was taken against defendant. Under such circumstances, defendant’s failure to answer easily could have been the result of excusable neglect under the Utah case cited by the majority opinion, — a case somewhat similar factually, — and such as to result in an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial.court in failing to relieve the defendant of the default.