Can domestic relations commissioners recommend granting rule 60(b) motions? Begum v. Begum Explained

In Begum v. Begum, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a domestic relations commissioner exceeded their authority by recommending that a district court grant a rule 60(b) motion to set aside portions of a divorce decree.

Background and Facts
Following a divorce trial, the district court awarded Wife custody of the minor children and ordered Husband to pay child support and alimony. Husband later filed a rule 60(b) motion based on newly discovered evidence that Wife had misrepresented her residence patterns and time spent with the children. A domestic relations commissioner recommended granting the motion to set aside the custody determination, which the district court accepted. After a second trial, the court terminated Wife’s alimony based on cohabitation and reduced child support.

Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the commissioner exceeded their authority under Utah Rules of Judicial Administration 6-401 by recommending relief under rule 60(b). Wife argued that such recommendations constitute prohibited “final adjudications” under Rule 6-401(4)(A). The court also addressed whether the district court properly considered post-trial evidence and complied with procedural requirements for entering the amended decree.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals held that commissioners may properly recommend granting rule 60(b) motions without exceeding their authority. The court reasoned that even when a commissioner’s recommendation temporarily modifies an existing order, it does not constitute a prohibited “final adjudication” because district court action remains pending. The recommendation anticipated further judicial review, which distinguished this case from Holm v. Smilowitz, where a commissioner improperly exercised ultimate judicial power.

Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that domestic relations commissioners have broad authority under Rule 6-401(2)(D) to make recommendations on any issue, including rule 60(b) motions. Practitioners should focus challenges on whether commissioners exceeded their statutory authority rather than arguing that recommendations automatically constitute final adjudications. The court also emphasized that parties challenging post-trial evidence admission must demonstrate both error and prejudice to obtain relief on appeal.