Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts strike untimely objections to proposed orders? Miner v. Lee Explained
Summary
John Y. and Sun Lee appealed the trial court’s order granting Gregory P. Miner’s motion to strike their objections to a proposed order as untimely. The Lees argued their objections should have been considered on the merits because they claimed the proposed order was not properly served under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 7(f)(2).
Analysis
In Miner v. Lee, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts may strike untimely objections to proposed orders under Rule 7(f)(2) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The case provides important guidance on timing requirements for objecting to proposed orders.
Background and Facts
Gregory Miner obtained a trial court ruling in his favor, and a proposed order was served on the Lees’ counsel on July 5, 2011, with proper notice that objections were due within five days. The certificate of service complied with Rule 7(f)(2) requirements. Despite receiving the proposed order and engaging in email discussions about it, the Lees failed to file objections within the five-day deadline. The trial court entered the final order on July 27, 2011, and the Lees filed their objections in August—well after the deadline. Miner moved to strike the untimely objections.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion in striking the Lees’ untimely objections to the proposed order. The Lees argued their objections should have been considered on the merits because they claimed the proposed order was not properly served under Rule 7(f)(2).
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the abuse of discretion standard, noting that motions to strike pleadings are addressed to the trial court’s judgment and discretion. The court found that the record supported proper service of the proposed order, including a certificate of service stating service occurred on July 5, 2011, with required notice that objections were due within five days. The court emphasized that the Lees’ counsel received the order, discussed it via email, and requested notification when it was submitted for signature.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the importance of strict compliance with Rule 7(f)(2) timing requirements. Practitioners must file objections to proposed orders within five days of service, regardless of informal discussions or additional notices. The court will not excuse untimely objections based on claims of improper service when the record demonstrates compliance with rule requirements.
Case Details
Case Name
Miner v. Lee
Citation
2012 UT App 11
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110971-CA
Date Decided
January 20, 2012
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking untimely objections to a proposed order where the objections were filed after the final order was entered despite proper service of the proposed order.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for rulings on motions to strike
Practice Tip
Ensure objections to proposed orders are filed within five days after service as required by Rule 7(f)(2), even if additional informal notice is provided, to avoid striking motions.
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.