Harper v. Froerer
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---Shari Harper and Glenn Harper, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Zane Froerer and Kevin A. Harper, Defendants and Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20090658-CA F I L E D (November 19, 2009) 2009 UT App 337 ----Second District, Ogden Department, 090900622 The Honorable W. Brent West Attorneys: Shari Harper and Glenn Harper, Huntsville, Appellants Pro Se Zane S. Froerer, Ogden, for Appellees ----- Before Judges Orme, Thorne, and McHugh. PER CURIAM: Appellants Shari and Glenn Harper (the Harpers) appeal the district court's order dismissing their complaint. We affirm. The Harpers assert that the district court erred by dismissing their complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The district court "shall have jurisdiction from the time of filing the complaint or service of the summons and a copy of the complaint." Utah R. Civ. P. 3(b). If a lawsuit is commenced by the service of a summons and a copy of a complaint, the complaint, summons, and proof of service must be filed within ten days of service. See id. R. 3(a)(2). If the complaint, summons, or proof of service are not filed within ten days of service, the district court is required to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. See id. The record indicates that the Defendants were served with a summons and complaint on January 26, 2009. The Harpers did not file the proof of service until nearly two months after serving the Defendants. Thus, the district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction because the Harpers failed to timely file the proof of service as required by rule 3(a)(2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. On appeal, the Harpers assert that rule 4(e)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provides that their failure to file a proof of service does not affect the validity of service. See id. R. 4(e)(3). However, although the district court may have acquired jurisdiction over the Defendants upon proper service of the summons and complaint, the district court was later divested of jurisdiction once the Harpers failed to file proof of service within ten days of service as required by rule 3(a)(2). Thus, the district court did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction when proof of service was not timely filed. The Harpers next assert that the district court erred by failing to enter default judgment against the Defendants. The record indicates that the district court did not enter default judgment because it was divested of jurisdiction once the Harpers failed to comply with rule 3(a)(2). Thus, the district court did not err by failing to enter default judgment. Affirmed.1 ______________________________ Gregory K. Orme, Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge ______________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge 1 To the extent that the Harpers raise other issues not specifically addressed above, we determine that such issues lack merit, and we decline to address them further. See State v. Carter, 888 P.2d 629, 648 (Utah 1994). 20090658-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.
