Court Opinion

ID: 9628668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:28:19.092774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:09.688346
License: Public Domain

CALLISTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The Utah Rules of Civil Procedure have been in effect since January 1, 1950 — long enough to afford members of the bar an opportunity to read them.
Granted, Rule 1(a) provides that the rules “shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.” However, it is expected that they be followed.1
Rule 7(b) (1), which deals with motions, reads in part that:
*155“An application to the court for an -Order shall he by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and ■shall set forth the relief or order -sought.”
In the instant case the “Notice Of Intention To Move For A New Trial” is certainly not an application for an order of the court. It is merely a notice of an intention to make an application to the court. In the body of the instrument it is stated the •defendant “intends to move” the court for a new trial. A statement of intention is not the doing of the act.2
It may well be that there is authority to -the effect that an improper caption will mot necessarily affect the nature of the instrument. However, it is interesting to note that the committee which formulated our Civil Rules of Procedure had this to say in their foreword:
“The Appendix of Forms contains .a number of suggested forms for the purpose of illustrating the informality of pleading and practice intended by the rules. However, each pleading, motion and other paper should be properly captioned and identify the subject matter contained therein.”
An attorney, upon being served with the instrument in question, could logically and reasonably assume that it was not a motion for a new trial.
In Holton v. Holton (footnote 1) this court held that failure to comply with our Civil Rules of Procedure should be excused only when satisfactory reasons are advanced for such failure. In my opinion failure to read the rules is not a satisfactory reason.
HENRIOD, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of CALLISTER, J.

. Holton v. Holton, 121 Utah 451, 243 P. 2d 438.

. Hallinan v. Prindle, 220 Cal. 46, 29 P.2d 202.