State of Utah, in the interest of K.S. and H.D.

Annotate this Case
State of Utah, in the interest of K.S. and H.D., persons under eighteen years of age., Case No. 20001017-CA, Filed March 29, 2001 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS


State of Utah, in the interest of K.S. and H.D.,
persons under eighteen years of age.

B.U. and B.U.,


State of Utah and adoptive parents,

(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20001017-CA

March 29, 2001 2001 UT App 97 -----

Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Andrew A. Valdez

D. Bruce Oliver, Salt Lake City, for Appellants
Mark L. Shurtleff and David Geary, Salt Lake City, for Appellee State of Utah
Thor B. Roundy, Salt Lake City, for Appellee Adoptive Parents
Martha Pierce, Salt Lake City, Guardian Ad Litem


Before Judges Bench, Billings, and Orme.


On October 16, 2000, the trial court entered an order dismissing appellants' objection to adoption and motion for new trial. Appellants filed an untimely notice of appeal from that order, but also sought an extension of time in which to file their notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(e) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. The trial court denied appellants' Rule 4(e) motion. Appellants then filed a timely notice of appeal seeking to appeal the December 6, 2000 order denying their Rule 4(e) motion as well as the October 16th order.

Because appellants did not timely appeal from the trial court's October 16th order, we lack jurisdiction to consider an appeal of that order. See Utah R. App. P. 4. Thus, the only issue properly before this court is the appeal from the trial court's December 6th order.

Pursuant to Rule 4(e), [t]he trial court, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal upon motion filed not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time prescribed by paragraph (a) of this rule. A "trial court's discretion to grant or deny a rule 4(e) motion is very broad." Reisbeck v. HCA Health Servs. of Utah, 2000 UT 48,¶6, 2 P.3d 447. Excusable neglect is "an admittedly neglectful delay that is nevertheless excused by special circumstances." Id. at ¶13. Good cause "pertains to special circumstances that are essentially beyond a party's control." Id. Appellants' reasons for failing to file a timely notice of appeal from the October 16th order do not meet the excusable neglect standard nor did they show good cause for the late filing. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying appellants' Rule 4(e) motion.


Russell W. Bench, Judge

Judith M. Billings, Judge

Gregory K. Orme, Judge