Lord v. Lord

3 Citing cases

  1. Sittner v. Schriever

    2000 UT 45 (Utah 2000)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that the preservation rule “does not require a party to file a post-judgment motion before the trial court as a prerequisite to filing an appeal” when the party has already raised the issue in motions and pleadings below

    ¶ 21 The court of appeals correctly observed that a motion filed pursuant to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) "does not extend or toll the thirty-day period in which appeals in the original action must be filed." Fackrell v. Fackrell, 740 P.2d 1318, 1319 (Utah 1987); see also Lord v. Lord, 709 P.2d 338, 338 n. 1 (Utah 1985) (per curiam) ("Rule 60(b) motions do not toll the time for appeal."); Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b) ("A motion under this Subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation."). Indeed, it has been noted:

  2. Nunley v. Westates Casing Services, Inc.

    1999 UT 100 (Utah 1999)   Cited 68 times
    Reviewing trial court's legal conclusions regarding application of estoppel doctrine for correctness

    Therefore, under both Rule 6(b) and Rule 52(b), the court could not grant Nunley's motion to extend despite the fact that Nunley's counsel was out of town when the judgment was filed and the fact that Nunley could not get a copy of the recorded transcript because the court's tape recorder was broken. SeeLord v. Lord, 709 P.2d 338, 338 (Utah 1985); Holbrook v. Hodson, 24 Utah 2d 120, 122, 466 P.2d 843, 844 (1970); Nunley v. Stan Katz Real Estate, Inc., 15 Utah 2d 126, 127-28, 388 P.2d 798, 799 (1964); In re Bundy's Estate, 121 Utah 299, 309-10, 241 P.2d 462, 467 (1952). ¶ 47 Affirmed.

  3. Bischel v. Merritt

    907 P.2d 275 (Utah Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that a "mistake of law by trial court may support a [r]ule 60(b) motion"

    Utah courts have consistently held that a 60(b) motion does not stay the time for appealing a judgment. Lord v. Lord, 709 P.2d 338, n. 1 (Utah 1985) (per curiam) (stating that "[r]ule 60(b) motions do not toll the time for appeal"); Peay v. Peay, 607 P.2d 841, 842 (Utah 1980) (explaining that rule 60(b) motion does not extend time for filing notice of appeal); Holbrook v. Hodson, 24 Utah 2d 120, 122 n. 2, 466 P.2d 843, 845 n. 2 (1970) (same); Anderson v. Anderson, 3 Utah 2d 277, 280, 282 P.2d 845, 847 (1955) (same); see also Utah R.App.P. 4(b). In her post-judgment motion, Bischel reargued and restated the same arguments she had made in opposing the motion to dismiss.