Can you use a rule 60(b) appeal to challenge an underlying judgment? Crosby v. Crosby Explained

Background and Facts

In Crosby v. Crosby, the parties’ divorce decree awarded joint legal custody of their two children but failed to include a required parenting plan as mandated by Utah Code Section 30-3-10.8. Four years later, Wife sent Husband a proposed parenting plan. When Husband objected, Wife filed a motion to enter the parenting plan and lodged Husband’s objections with the trial court. Without a hearing, the court adopted Wife’s proposed plan. Two months later, Husband—now represented by counsel—filed a rule 60(b) motion seeking to set aside the parenting plan.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Husband could use an appeal from the denial of his rule 60(b) motion to challenge the underlying April 2010 order adopting the parenting plan. Additional issues included whether Husband’s arguments were adequately briefed and preserved, and whether his claim about facing a “Hobson’s choice” regarding modification was ripe for review.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals applied abuse of discretion review to the trial court’s rule 60(b) ruling. The court held that “an appeal of a Rule 60(b) order addresses only the propriety of the denial or grant of relief” and “does not reach the merits of the underlying judgment from which relief was sought.” The court emphasized that allowing such challenges would make rule 60(b) “a substitute for timely appeals.” The court also found Husband’s brief inadequately addressed rule 60(b) requirements and that his challenge to the adequacy of findings was unpreserved.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces critical appellate procedure limitations. Practitioners must understand that rule 60(b) appeals have a narrow scope—they cannot revive time-barred challenges to underlying judgments. When filing rule 60(b) motions, counsel must specifically address the rule’s requirements and preserve any challenges to the adequacy of findings. The decision also demonstrates the importance of timely direct appeals from adverse judgments rather than attempting collateral attacks through post-judgment motions.