Gray v. Gray

Annotate this Case
Gray v. Gray, Case No. 20010703-CA, Filed November 8, 2001 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Cheryl L. Gray,
Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

Edward J. Gray,
Respondent and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010703-CA

F I L E D
November 8, 2001 2001 UT App 338 -----

Second District, Farmington Department
The Honorable Rodney S. Page

Attorneys:
Cheryl L. Gray, Livonia, Michigan, Appellant Pro Se
Matthew F. McNulty and Brian K. Lofgren, Salt Lake City, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition. Appellant Cheryl L. Gray did not file a memorandum, therefore, this court must rely solely on Appellant's docketing statement. Appellee Edward J. Gray did file a memorandum with the court.

Appellant alleges in her docketing statement that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on appellee's motion to limit filings because the divorce complaint had already been dismissed by that court. However, Appellant's own post-judgment filings prompted Appellee to seek relief. It is disingenuous for Appellant to file motions in a case which has been dismissed and then claim that appellee has no right to respond. Moreover, the trial court has continuing jurisdiction in domestic cases. See Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(1), (3) (Supp. 2001); Bankler v. Bankler, 963 P.2d 797, 799 (Utah Ct. App. 1998); Rimensburger v. Rimensburger, 841 P.2d 709 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). The law is clear that the trial court has jurisdiction to grant equitable relief.

Appellant also argues that Appellee sought a restraining order, but did not follow Rule 65A of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Rule 65A(f) specifically states that the rule is not intended to limit the trial court's equitable powers in domestic relations cases. The advisory committee notes to the Rule 65A also indicate that the rule should not be interpreted to limit the authority of the courts in domestic relations cases.

For the reasons stated above, we grant the court's motion for summary disposition and affirm the trial court's order. Appellee's request for attorney fees is denied.
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge