Court Opinion

ID: 9795200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:22:08.000145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:26:59.183422
License: Public Domain

THORNE, Judge
(dissenting):
T 16 I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion's decision to address the merits of the Cornabys' appeal under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. See Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b). For the reasons expressed in Gillett v. Price, 2006 UT 24, 135 P.3d 861, I would treat the Cornabys' motion to reconsider as a legal nullity, seeking no permitted relief and warranting no appellate review.
117 In Gillett, the supreme court "absolutely reject[ed] the practice of filing post-judgment motions to reconsider." Id. at 11. The court observed that "postjudgment motions to reconsider are not recognized anywhere in either the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure or the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure," id. at 16, and that the use of such motions has been discouraged in previous decisions, see id. at 19; Shipman v. Evans, 2004 UT 44,¶ 18 n. 5, 100 P.3d 1151; Salt Lake Knee & Sports Rehab., Inc. v. Salt Lake City Knee & Sports Med., 909 P.2d 266, 269 n. 2 (Utah Ct.App.1995) ("Notwithstanding our conclusion, we are not approving the use of pleadings identified as something not provided for in the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.").
118 As the Gillett court noted, Utah's appellate courts have, in the past, treated motions to reconsider as rule-sanctioned motions based on their substance. See 2006 UT 24 at 18, 135 P.8d 861. However, litigants have also long been on notice that reconsideration motions are unsupported under the rules and are disfavored by the courts. Under these cireumstances, I do not believe that our prior practice of interpreting reconsideration motions to allow substantive review created any precedential right to receive such an interpretation. Rather, I view the practice as a gratuitous courtesy that was onee extended, but is no longer appropriate under Gillett,
19 For these reasons, I would hold that the Cornabys' postjudgment motion to reconsider had no legal effect, that they failed to request relief under rule 60(b), and that they are therefore not entitled to such relief I would affirm the judgment of the trial court on this basis without further analysis.