Mulder v. Mulder

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Tamara Rowley Mulder, Petitioner and Appellee, v. Robert Matthew Mulder, Respondent and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20070919-CA F I L E D (February 22, 2008) 2008 UT App 52 ----Fourth District, Provo Department, 054401811 The Honorable James R. Taylor Attorneys: Robert M. Mulder, Clearlake Oaks, California, Appellant Pro Se Stephen T. Hard, Murray, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Thorne, Bench, and Billings. PER CURIAM: Robert Mulder appeals the district court's order finding him guilty of civil contempt.1 This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition for insubstantial question. Robert Mulder did not respond to the motion. Robert Mulder asserts that the district court erred in ordering him to serve fifteen days in jail for civil contempt. Tamara Mulder asserts that in addition to presenting an insubstantial question, the issue is moot. We agree. A case is deemed moot when the requested judicial relief cannot remedy the issues raised by the litigants. See Jones v. Schwendiman, 721 P.2d 893, 894 (Utah 1986). We refrain from adjudicating issues when they are moot. See id. This court can provide no judicial relief that will reverse Robert Mulder's time spent incarcerated. Thus, we find the issue to be moot. 1. Robert Mulder also appeals a "supplemental order," which is substantively a scheduling order and is not a final appealable order. Furthermore, the underlying contempt order has been affirmed in a prior decision.2 Accordingly, Robert Mulder's appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ Russell W. Bench, Judge ______________________________ Judith M. Billings, Judge 2. To the extent that Robert Mulder's docketing statement could be construed as presenting other arguments, this court has determined such issues to be without merit. 20070919-CA 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.