Can a timely memorandum cure an untimely Rule 59 motion? A.S. v. R.S. Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in A.S. v. R.S. provides crucial guidance on electronic filing deadlines and the strict requirements for Rule 59(e) motions in family law cases involving attorney fee awards.

Background and Facts

Following juvenile court proceedings that awarded Mother attorney fees after Father’s unsuccessful petition to terminate her parental rights, the district court entered a judgment for $180,780.47 in attorney fees. Father filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment, but the motion was filed minutes after the midnight deadline due to electronic filing timing. While Father’s supporting memorandum was filed before midnight on April 20, 2015, the actual motion was electronically filed between three to sixteen minutes after midnight on April 21, 2015.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether a timely filed memorandum could substitute for an untimely Rule 59(e) motion, and whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider the untimely motion under Rule 6(b)(2)’s prohibition on extending time for Rule 59(e) motions.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Supreme Court held that Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 7 clearly distinguishes between motions and memoranda, requiring separate filings with distinct purposes. A memorandum cannot substitute for an untimely motion because it fails to “state succinctly and with particularity the relief sought.” The court emphasized that Rule 6(b)(2) strips district courts of authority to consider untimely Rule 59(e) motions, making this a jurisdictional bar rather than a matter of discretion.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the importance of timely filing all required documents in electronic filing systems. The Utah Trial Court System Electronic Filing Guide establishes that filing dates are determined by when the court’s system receives documents, not when attorneys submit them. Practitioners must allow adequate time before deadlines and cannot rely on supporting documents to cure untimely motions. The court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction demonstrates that procedural compliance directly affects appellate rights in family law cases.