Boggs v. Boggs

1 Citing case

  1. Crank v. Utah Judicial Council

    2001 UT 8 (Utah 2001)   Cited 17 times
    Stating that, where "[t]he question of entitlement to fees at the [district] court level has not yet been determined, . . . any appropriate award of attorney fees on appeal is dependent upon that determination and should be assessed by the district court on remand"

    ¶ 28 Thus, in Utah, the statutory requirement of an affidavit is a procedural prerequisite to the imposition of any sanctions for indirect contempt. See Thomas, 759 P.2d at 1171;see also Khan v. Khan, 921 P.2d 466, 468 (Utah Ct.App. 1996); Boggs v. Boggs, 824 P.2d 478, 481-82 (Utah Ct.App. 1991). Crank never submitted an affidavit, nor have the parties specifically addressed the issue of whether Crank's verified motion — which did include specific allegations against Judge Anderson — could be treated as an affidavit for purposes of Section 78-32-3. In another context, we have held that "[a] verified pleading, made under oath and meeting the requirements for affidavits established in Rule 56(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, can be the equivalent of an affidavit for purposes of a motion for summary judgment."