Utah Court of Appeals
When must parties request costs under Utah Rule 54(d)(2)? Aurora Credit Services, Inc. v. Liberty West Development, Inc. Explained
Summary
Aurora Credit Services appealed the trial court’s award of costs to Liberty West Development, arguing that Liberty West’s request for costs was untimely under Rule 54(d)(2). Liberty West filed its cost memorandum in June 2006, more than five days after the 2004 trial court order that dismissed Aurora’s case with prejudice, but argued it could wait until the appeal was complete because costs must ‘abide the final determination’ under Rule 54(d)(1).
Analysis
Background and Facts
In July 2004, the trial court issued sanctions against Aurora Credit Services for “blatant and willful disregard” of court orders, including dismissal of Aurora’s complaint with prejudice. Aurora appealed, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed in 2006. In June 2006, after the appeal concluded, Liberty West Development filed a motion for costs and a verified memorandum of costs. Aurora challenged this filing as untimely under Rule 54(d)(2), which requires cost requests within five days of judgment.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Liberty West’s June 2006 cost request was timely under Rule 54(d)(2), which mandates that parties claim costs “within five days after the entry of judgment.” Liberty West argued that Rule 54(d)(1)‘s provision that costs “shall abide the final determination of the cause” when an appeal is taken allowed it to wait until the appeal was complete. Aurora contended the five-day period began running from the 2004 dismissal order.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Rule 54(d)(2)‘s five-day deadline is “unambiguously mandatory” and begins running from the trial court’s final judgment, not from completion of appeals. While Rule 54(d)(1) allows the trial court to delay awarding costs until after appeal, it does not excuse parties from the five-day filing requirement. The court distinguished between the party’s obligation to request costs and the court’s discretion to award them.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that prevailing parties must file cost memoranda within five days of the trial court’s judgment, even when appeals are anticipated. Waiting until appeal completion results in untimely filing and forfeiture of cost recovery rights. The court rejected efficiency arguments, noting that parties cannot know with certainty whether appeals will be filed. Practitioners should file cost requests promptly after trial court judgments, accepting the risk that reversals may render cost awards moot.
Case Details
Case Name
Aurora Credit Services, Inc. v. Liberty West Development, Inc.
Citation
2007 UT App 327
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
Case No. 20060964-CA
Date Decided
October 12, 2007
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Rule 54(d)(2)’s five-day deadline for requesting costs begins running from the trial court’s final judgment, not from the completion of appeal proceedings, and parties cannot wait until after appeal to file their cost memorandum.
Standard of Review
Correctness for interpretation of civil procedure rules, giving no deference to the trial court’s conclusion
Practice Tip
File cost memoranda within five days of the trial court’s final judgment even if an appeal is expected, as waiting until appeal completion will result in untimely filing and forfeiture of the right to costs.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.