ORS v. Johnson

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, office of Recovery Services, ex rel.,
State of California, ex rel., Paula Johnson,

Petitioners and Appellees,

v.

Johnnie B. Johnson,

Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20031038-CA
 

F I L E D
(June 4, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 184

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Joseph C. Fratto

Attorneys: Johnnie B. Johnson, Taylorsville, Appellant Pro Se

Mark L. Shurtleff, Sandra Langley, and Karma K. Dixon, Salt Lake City, for Appellees

-----

Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition on the basis that Appellant Johnson was held in contempt of court and he has not demonstrated that he has purged the contempt. Johnson was found in contempt by the district court for failure to pay support ordered by a California court and purportedly registered in Utah. The State, in its response to this court's motion, concedes that Johnson was improperly found in contempt because the California order was not properly registered. As a result, the State argues that the order of contempt was not final because it did not end the controversy between the parties. See Kennedy v. New Era Indus., Inc., 600 P.2d 534, 536 (Utah 1979).

Specifically, the State alleges that the proper procedure for registering a foreign judgment was not followed. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-45f-603 to 610 (2002). The State filed a Notice of Registration of a Foreign Judgment on February 24, 2000. Utah Code Annotated section 78-45f-605 (2002) allows the subject of the foreign judgment twenty days to file an objection to registration. On March 15, 2000, Johnson filed what the State concedes to be an objection to the registration of the foreign judgment. The objection also contained a request for a hearing. Johnson was entitled, having timely filed an objection, to an opportunity to present any designated statutory defenses to the registering of the foreign judgment. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-45f-607 (2002).

Johnson was not afforded a hearing by the commissioner or the district judge. Instead, the district court signed the commissioner's recommendation, making it an order, unaware that the judgment had not been properly registered. The district court then set an order to show cause hearing to address whether Johnson was in violation of the California judgment. Following the order to show cause hearing, the district court concluded that Johnson was in violation of the judgment and issued a contempt order, from which Johnson appeals.

We agree that Johnson, having filed a timely objection to registration of the foreign judgment, was entitled to an opportunity to present his defense and that he was not afforded that opportunity. We disagree, however, that the order was not final. The failure to follow proper procedure in registering the judgment does not result in the order being interlocutory; rather, it is manifest error requiring that the contempt order be vacated.

The order of contempt, premised on the assumption that the judgment was properly registered, is vacated and the finding that the judgment was registered is summarily reversed. This matter is remanded to the district court for the court to apply the correct procedure for registering a foreign judgment and for any subsequent proceedings necessary as a result of that determination.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge