When must parties file motions to disqualify Utah trial judges? Golden Meadows Properties v. Strand Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Golden Meadows Properties v. Strand addressed critical timing and substantive requirements for judicial disqualification motions under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 63, providing important guidance for practitioners seeking to challenge trial judge assignments.

Background and Facts

Three months after summary judgment was entered against them, defendants moved to disqualify Judge Dawson under rule 63, arguing he should have recused himself because he had previously represented the IRS as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in an action against one of defendant’s businesses twenty years earlier. Defendants claimed they discovered this conflict two months after judgment when they found a legal document signed by then-Assistant U.S. Attorney Dawson at their parents’ house. They filed the disqualification motion twenty-seven days after learning of the alleged conflict and sought relief from judgment under rule 60(b).

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: whether defendants’ motion to disqualify was timely filed under rule 63(b)(1)(B)(iii), and whether Judge Dawson’s minimal prior involvement with defendants’ business mandated recusal under the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied correctness review to the recusal question and abuse of discretion to the rule 60(b) motion. The court found the disqualification motion untimely, as rule 63(b)(1)(B)(iii) requires filing within twenty days of learning the grounds for disqualification. Defendants filed twenty-seven days after discovering the alleged conflict. The court also determined that Judge Dawson’s minimal involvement—merely signing an agreement concerning office furniture decades earlier—fell far short of requiring recusal under Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11(A)(6)(a).

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes strict enforcement of the twenty-day deadline for judicial disqualification motions. Courts will not excuse untimely filing merely because circumstances explain delayed discovery of the conflict. Additionally, practitioners should understand that minimal prior attorney-client contact between a judge and party, particularly from decades past and unrelated to the current matter, will not support disqualification absent clear bias or prejudice.