Utah Court of Appeals
What happens when a district court skips the objection hearing in protective order cases? Miller v. Dasilva Explained
Summary
Lisa Miller petitioned for a cohabitant abuse protective order against Amy Dasilva. After a commissioner recommended dismissal, the district court immediately entered a final dismissal order and denied Miller’s timely objection without holding the required hearing. The Court of Appeals found this violated the statutory procedure requiring a hearing on timely objections to commissioner recommendations.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed a critical procedural error in protective order proceedings in Miller v. Dasilva, 2022 UTApp 15. The case highlights the importance of following statutory procedures when commissioners make recommendations in cohabitant abuse protective order cases.
Background and Facts
Lisa Miller petitioned for a cohabitant abuse protective order against her former friend and tenant, Amy Dasilva. After a temporary protective order was issued, a hearing was held before a commissioner. The commissioner found insufficient evidence to support the protective order and recommended dismissal. That same day, at the direction of a district court judge, the court clerk entered a final dismissal order. Miller filed a timely objection requesting an evidentiary hearing, but the district court denied the objection without holding a hearing, claiming dismissal was a “final decision” rather than a commissioner recommendation subject to review.
Key Legal Issues
The dispositive issue was whether the district court could immediately dismiss the case based on the commissioner’s recommendation and deny Miller’s objection without holding the statutorily required hearing under Utah Code section 78B-7-604(1)(f).
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied a correctness standard for questions of statutory interpretation. The court noted that commissioners are prohibited from making “final adjudications” and can only make recommendations. Under Utah Code section 78B-7-604(1)(f), when a hearing takes place before a commissioner, either party may file an objection within 10 days, and the assigned judge must hold a hearing within 20 days after the objection is filed. The court emphasized that a judge’s counter-signature on a commissioner’s recommendation does not eliminate the right to object and request a hearing.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that procedural due process cannot be bypassed in protective order cases. Courts must allow the full objection period to expire before entering final orders based on commissioner recommendations. When timely objections are filed, district courts are statutorily required to hold hearings, regardless of whether they agree with the commissioner’s recommendation. The decision protects parties’ rights to meaningful review of commissioner recommendations in sensitive domestic relations matters.
Case Details
Case Name
Miller v. Dasilva
Citation
2022 UT App 15
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20200719-CA
Date Decided
February 3, 2022
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A final judgment on a cohabitant abuse protective order petition cannot be entered based on a commissioner’s recommendation until parties are afforded their statutory right to object and, if a timely objection is filed, to a hearing before the district court.
Standard of Review
Questions of law reviewed for correctness with no deference to the trial court
Practice Tip
When a commissioner makes a recommendation in a protective order case, ensure adequate time passes for objections to be filed before seeking entry of a final order, and always schedule hearings on timely objections as required by statute.
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.