AFS, Inc. v. Olsen

Annotate this Case
AFS, Inc. v. Olsen. Filed August 19, 1999 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS


AFS, Inc.,
Plaintiff and Appellee,


Paula M. Olsen,
Defendant and Appellant.

(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 981800-CA

August 19, 1999

1999 UT App 244 -----

Third District, West Valley Department
The Honorable Ann Boyden

Paula M. Olsen, Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se
Kevin G. Richards and Raymond B. Rounds, Salt Lake City, for Appellee


Before Judges Wilkins, Billings, and Jackson.


Olsen asks that we overturn the trial court's award of court costs to AFS and that she be awarded those costs based upon Utah R. Civ. P. 8(d). She contends that because AFS did not respond to her objections to its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, her objections should be deemed admitted. However, Rule 8(d) does not apply to these facts. According to the Rule: Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not considered pleadings and no response is required. Instead, Utah Code Jud. Admin. R 4-504(2) applies. That rule allows an opposing party to file an objection to proposed findings and conclusions as Olsen did. Id. However, the drafter of proposed findings and conclusions is not required to respond and objections to which there is no response are not deemed admitted. Id. Rather, the trial court considers the proposed finding and conclusions and any objections and either amends the findings and conclusions or signs them as proposed. In this case, the trial court implicitly rejected Olsen's objections when it signed the findings and conclusions submitted by AFS.

Since Rule 8(d) does not apply, the trial court was not required to follow it. Affirmed.

Michael J. Wilkins,
Presiding Judge

Judith M. Billings, Judge

Norman H. Jackson, Judge