Thomas v. Thomas|

2014 UT App 72
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
HEATHER MARIE THOMAS,
Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
SCOTT STEVEN THOMAS,
Respondent and Appellant.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20131059-CA
Filed March 27, 2014
Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Todd M. Shaughnessy
No. 124904860
Theodore R. Weckel, Attorney for Appellant
Kellie F. Williams, Attorney for Appellee
Before JUDGES JAMES Z. DAVIS, J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., and
JOHN A. PEARCE.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Scott S. Thomas appeals the district court’s October 8, 2013
order denying his rule 60(b)(1) motion. We affirm.
¶2 A ruling on a rule 60(b) motion constitutes a separate,
appealable order. See Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shettler, 768 P.2d 950,
970 (Utah Ct. App. 1989). The filing of a rule 60(b) motion does not
toll the time to appeal issues from the underlying judgment. See
Utah R. App. P. 4(b). The district court is afforded broad discretion
in ruling on a motion for relief from judgment under rule 60(b). See
Birch v. Birch, 771 P.2d 1114, 1117 (Utah Ct. App. 1989). The district
court’s decision on a rule 60(b) motion will not be disturbed absent
a showing that the court abused its discretion. See id. An appeal

Thomas v. Thomas
1. The notice of appeal sought review of the October 8, 2013 order
denying the rule 60(b)(1) motion. We lack jurisdiction to consider
issues addressed in the October 4, 2013 ruling. See Utah R. App. P.
4(a).
20131059-CA 2 2014 UT App 72
from a rule 60(b) motion is narrow in scope and addresses only the
propriety of the denial or grant of relief from judgment, lest rule
60(b) motions become substitutes for untimely appeals. See Franklin
Covey Client Sales, Inc. v. Merlin, 2000 UT App 110, ¶ 19, 2 P.3d 451.
A rule 60(b) motion does not generally reach the merits of the
underlying judgment from which relief was sought or provide a
basis for this court to review the legal issues previously adjudicated
by the district court. See id. ¶ 23.
¶3 Thomas’s rule 60(b)(1) motion asserted that the district
court’s ruling was based on mistakes of law. On October 8, 2013,
the district court denied Thomas’s rule 60(b)(1) motion. On
November 7, 2013, Thomas timely filed his notice of appeal from
the October 8, 2013 order. Thomas’s appeal seeks to challenge the1
district court’s purported mistakes of law. However, an appeal or
a motion for a new trial, rather than a rule 60(b) motion, is the
proper avenue to address alleged mistakes of law committed by the
district court. See id. ¶¶ 21-22. Mistakes of law are excluded from
the narrow realm of “mistakes” recognized under rule 60(b)(1),
typically “minor oversights, such as the omission of damages,
which in most cases would be obvious.” Fisher v. Bybee, 2004 UT 92,
¶ 11, 104 P.3d 1198.
¶4 Thomas’s appeal improperly exceeds the scope of rule
60(b)(1). See id. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying the rule 60(b)(1) motion.
¶5 Accordingly, the district court’s October 8, 2013 order is
affirmed. Appellee’s request for attorney fees incurred on appeal
is denied.