Christensen v. Hammon

Christensen v. Hammon

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Brad Alan Christensen dba Christensen Commercial,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Adrian Hammon, Justin Hammon, and Basic Investment Livestock,

Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040870-CA
 

F I L E D
(January 21, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 19

 

-----

Fifth District, St. George Department

The Honorable James L. Shumate

Attorneys: Adrian Hammon, Centennial Park, Arizona, and Justin Hammon, Mt. Pleasant, Appellants Pro Se

LaMar J. Winward, St. George, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Greenwood, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    Adrian and Justin Hammon appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion to set aside a default judgment. This is before the court on Brad Christensen's motion for summary disposition. The Hammons did not file a response to the motion.

    In their notice of appeal, the Hammons identify both the judgment and the denial of their motion to set aside the judgment as orders from which the appeal is taken. However, only the appeal from the denial of the motion to set aside is properly before this court. The Hammons did not file a timely notice of appeal from the entry of the judgment itself. See Utah R. App. P. 4(a) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within thirty days of the order appealed). Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the judgment. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299,¶7, 13 P.3d 616.

    The Hammons timely filed the notice of appeal from the September 3 denial of their motion to set aside the judgment. This court reviews the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment pursuant to rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure for abuse of discretion. See Franklin Covey Client Sales v. Melvin, 2000 UT App 110,¶9, 2 P.3d 451. Furthermore, the scope of review of trial court orders denying rule 60(b) relief is limited. See id. at ¶19. On appeal from a rule 60(b) order, the appellate court "addresses only the propriety of the denial or grant of relief." Id. (quoting James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 60.68(3) (3rd ed. 1999)). The reviewing court will not reach the merits of the underlying judgment. See id. Review of rule 60(b) orders "must be narrowed in this manner lest [r]ule 60(b) become a substitute for timely appeals." Id.

    On appeal, the Hammons have stated issues that are substantive challenges to the judgment itself or other underlying orders. These issues are beyond the scope of review of the trial court's denial of their rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment. See id. The Hammons have not stated an issue regarding the denial of the motion to set aside itself. As a result, they have failed to state a substantial issue meriting further consideration by this court. See Utah R. App. P. 10.

    Accordingly, the trial court's denial of the Hammons' motion to set aside the judgment is summarily affirmed.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge