Stratton v. Stratton, 2000 UT App 13

Podcast Interviews and Other Sources

Podcast Interviews

Oral Argument

Briefing Documents

Plura pertinentia mox sequentur. Quaeso, redi mox.

Coverage

Facts

• Stipulation and Decree: The parties’ divorce was resolved through a stipulation proposed by Ms. Stratton, which was incorporated into the divorce decree.
• Initial Rule 60(b) Motion: Stratton moved to set aside the stipulation and decree on a multitude of grounds; the trial court determined that only her claim of being unaware of certain marital assets at the time of the stipulation could potentially call the stipulation’s validity into question.
• Deficiency in Initial Motion: The trial court found Ms. Stratton’s allegations regarding undisclosed marital assets too vague and speculative to set aside the stipulation and decree.
• Renewed Motion and Epperson Affidavit: Stratton renewed her motion and submitted the affidavit of Sherry Epperson, which the Court of Appeals found adequate to identify the marital property allegedly newly discovered.
• Failure to Show Diligence: Stratton did not submit any affidavit addressing her diligence in attempting to discover the property before judgment, as required under Rule 60(b)(2).
• Discovery Record: Stratton argued on appeal and at oral argument that she had propounded discovery aimed at uncovering the property interests later identified in the Epperson affidavit and that Mr. Stratton was unresponsive; however, the appellate record contained none of the actual discovery requests or answers, only certificates of service.

Issues of the Case

• Civil Procedure — Post-Judgment Relief

  1. Relief from Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(2) — Newly Discovered Marital Assets

  Claim on Appeal: Ms. Stratton argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to set aside the divorce stipulation and decree, contending that she was unaware of certain marital assets when she entered into the stipulation and that the Epperson affidavit established this newly discovered evidence.

  Holding: — Affirmed. The court held that although the Epperson affidavit adequately identified the allegedly newly discovered marital property, Ms. Stratton wholly failed to meet her separate obligation under Rule 60(b)(2) to show that the evidence could not have been discovered and produced through due diligence before judgment, because the record contained no discovery requests or responses to substantiate her diligence.

  Statutory Authority: Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) (relief from final judgment based on newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered by due diligence before judgment); Utah R. Jud. Admin. 4-502(3) (requiring a party to file with the trial court the portions of discovery necessary to demonstrate the adequacy of discovery requests or the inadequacy of the opposing party’s answers).

  Standard of Review:

  • Abuse of discretion — applied to the trial court’s ruling on a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b), which will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion.

  Controlling Cases:

  • Birch v. Birch, 771 P.2d 1114, 1117 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (setting out Rule 60(b)’s seven grounds for relief and the broad discretion afforded trial courts)
  • Ostler v. Buhler, 957 P.2d 205, 206 (Utah 1998) (confirming the abuse-of-discretion standard governing review of Rule 60(b) rulings)
  • Hall v. Fitzgerald, 671 P.2d 224, 229 (Utah 1983) (articulating the requirement that newly discovered evidence could not, by due diligence, have been discovered and produced before judgment)
  • Doty v. Town of Cedar Hills, 656 P.2d 993, 995 (Utah 1982) (original source of the due-diligence standard quoted in Hall)
  • State v. Mitchell, 709 P.2d 307, 309 (Utah 1985) (appellant bears the burden of ensuring the record contains the materials necessary to support the appeal; missing portions are presumed to support the trial court’s ruling)

  Why It Matters: This decision confirms that Rule 60(b)(2) imposes two independent requirements — identification of newly discovered evidence and proof of due diligence in failing to discover it sooner — and that failure on either prong is fatal regardless of the strength of the other. It also illustrates the practical consequence of an incomplete appellate record in domestic relations appeals: without the discovery requests and responses themselves in the record, an appellate court will presume the missing material supports the trial court’s ruling, not the appellant’s position, effectively shifting the outcome of the appeal on a record-development failure rather than the underlying merits.

Rules of Evidence

Utah Codes

Rules of Civil Procedure

Utah Code of Judicial Administration

Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure

Utah Rules of Professional Conduct

Case Cited

Litigation and Appellate Strategy

Reversal Predictor

• Motion supported by discovery requests and responses actually filed with the trial court, not merely referenced
• Affidavit(s) specifically addressing why the evidence could not have been discovered sooner despite diligent efforts
• Concrete, non-speculative allegations of the opposing party’s evasive or dishonest discovery conduct, supported by the record

Mandatory Factor Checklist

• Specific identification of the newly discovered evidence (marital assets)
• Demonstration that the evidence could not, by due diligence, have been discovered and produced before judgment
• Filing of the discovery materials necessary to substantiate diligence, per Utah R. Jud. Admin. 4-502(3)

Signal Cluster (High-Risk Appeal Profile)

• A Rule 60(b)(2) motion resting primarily on speculative or vague allegations of undisclosed assets
• No discovery requests or responses included in the trial court record — only certificates of service
• Diligence argued for the first time in the brief or at oral argument rather than supported by affidavit below

Strategy Insight

Practitioners should frame a Rule 60(b)(2) appeal as a record-completeness problem as much as a legal-error problem: an appellate panel applying the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard will not search for facts outside the record to support reversal, so the strategic battle is often won or lost at the trial court level by what gets filed, not by how the issue is later argued on appeal.

Insights

Utah-Only Jurisprudence

The opinion relies exclusively on Utah authority — Birch v. Birch, Ostler v. Buhler, Hall v. Fitzgerald, Doty v. Town of Cedar Hills, and State v. Mitchell — with no citation to out-of-state or federal case law, despite Rule 60(b)’s parentage in the federal rule of the same number.

Doctrinal Anchors (Utah Supreme Court)

• Ostler v. Buhler, 957 P.2d 205 (Utah 1998): Establishes that a trial court’s Rule 60(b) ruling is reviewed only for abuse of discretion. It anchors the deferential standard of review applied throughout the opinion.
• Hall v. Fitzgerald, 671 P.2d 224 (Utah 1983): Establishes the due-diligence requirement under Rule 60(b)(2). It supplies the operative legal test the court applies to deny relief.
• Doty v. Town of Cedar Hills, 656 P.2d 993 (Utah 1982): Original source of the due-diligence language adopted in Hall. It underlies the substantive standard for newly discovered evidence.
• State v. Mitchell, 709 P.2d 307 (Utah 1985): Establishes the appellant’s burden to marshal an adequate record and the presumption that missing portions favor the trial court. It supplies the dispositive procedural rule that resolves the appeal.

The Most Important Holding

The most significant holding is that the two requirements of Rule 60(b)(2) — newly discovered evidence and due diligence in failing to discover it sooner — are independent, and satisfying one does not excuse a failure to prove the other. Even though the Epperson affidavit adequately identified the allegedly undisclosed marital property, the absence of any record evidence of diligence was independently fatal to the motion.

Reversal Based on Legal Error vs. Factual Error

The trial court’s ruling was affirmed in full, so no reversal occurred. Had Ms. Stratton included in the record the actual discovery requests and Mr. Stratton’s responses (or lack thereof), and had that record shown a genuine, diligent effort to uncover the marital assets met with evasive or dishonest responses, the due-diligence prong could have been satisfied and the outcome might have differed. The affirmance here rests on a failure of proof and record development, not on any legal error by the trial court.

Practitioner Takeaways

• Trial Lawyers: When moving under Rule 60(b)(2), build the diligence record contemporaneously — file the actual discovery requests and responses (or non-responses), not just certificates of service, and submit an affidavit specifically addressing the diligence element.
• Appellate Lawyers: Affirmatively designate all discovery materials relevant to a Rule 60(b)(2) claim as part of the record on appeal; an incomplete record will be construed against the appellant under State v. Mitchell.
• Family Law Practitioners / Self-Represented Litigants: An affidavit identifying newly discovered marital property, without more, is insufficient; diligence must be independently and concretely documented.