Does entering written findings restart the appeal deadline under Rule 58A? In re Adoption of E.M.F. Explained

In In re Adoption of E.M.F., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical timing issue that frequently traps unwary litigants: when does the appeal clock start ticking when no separate judgment is entered after a district court’s oral ruling?

Background and Facts

Mother and stepfather sought to terminate the biological father’s parental rights for stepparent adoption. After a bench trial in December 2018, the district court announced from the bench that it was denying the petition, stating “That will be the order of the Court.” The court indicated it would not prepare written findings unless a party chose to submit them. Neither party prepared a separate judgment as required by Rule 58A(a). The court’s minute entry was recorded on December 13, 2018. Over a year later, the court finally entered written findings in June 2020, and mother and stepfather appealed shortly thereafter.

Key Legal Issues

The central question was whether the court of appeals had appellate jurisdiction when the notice of appeal was filed in June 2020, more than 18 months after the district court’s oral ruling. This required interpreting Rule 58A(e)(2), which provides two alternative triggers for when a judgment becomes final and appealable.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Under Rule 58A(e)(2)(B), when no separate judgment is prepared, the “backstop” provision makes a judgment final 150 days after the clerk records the decision. Here, the 150-day period expired in May 2019, making any appeal filed after June 2019 untimely. The court rejected mother and stepfather’s argument that the later entry of written findings in June 2020 could restart the appeal period.

The court also declined to consider mother and stepfather’s constitutional challenge to Rule 58A, finding they failed to establish either plain error or exceptional circumstances to excuse their failure to preserve the issue.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Rule 58A’s 150-day backstop creates an absolute deadline that cannot be extended by later procedural filings. Practitioners must be vigilant about preparing proposed judgments within 14 days of any district court ruling to ensure certainty about appeal deadlines. The case also demonstrates the difficulty of raising constitutional challenges to procedural rules for the first time on appeal without proper preservation of error.