When can a judgment be set aside as void in Utah? American United v. Murray Explained

In American United v. Murray, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when a judgment can be set aside as void under rule 60(b)(4), providing important guidance on the narrow scope of void judgments and the timing requirements for augmenting attorney fee awards.

Background and Facts

Jason Murray borrowed over $60,000 from American United Family of Credit Unions through various loans and credit cards. When Murray defaulted, American United sued him. The parties entered into a stipulated confession of judgment that included a payment schedule and allowed American United to obtain an ex parte judgment if Murray failed to make payments. Murray defaulted within a month, and the district court entered judgment for $75,905.91. After four years of unsuccessful collection efforts, American United moved to augment the judgment for additional attorney fees incurred during collection.

Key Legal Issues

Murray moved to set aside the judgment as void under rule 60(b)(4), arguing two theories: first, that the confession of judgment violated rule 58A(i) by failing to specify exact interest rates for certain credit cards; and second, that the Utah Consumer Credit Code prohibited confessions of judgment, making the waiver of notice provision invalid and violating his due process rights. Murray also challenged the district court’s partial grant of American United’s motion to augment attorney fees.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings. Regarding the void judgment claim, the court emphasized that Utah courts “narrowly construe the concept of a void judgment in the interest of finality.” A judgment is void under rule 60(b)(4) only if the court lacked jurisdiction or the judgment was entered without required due process notice. The alleged rule 58A(i) violation did not deprive the court of jurisdiction, and Murray had actual notice of the confession’s terms when he voluntarily signed the stipulation with counsel. On the attorney fee augmentation, the court held that rule 73(f)’s “reasonable time” standard applied rather than the more restrictive rule 73(f)(3) schedule, since American United sought fees exceeding the scheduled amounts.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that rule 60(b)(4) motions are not substitutes for timely appeals and that technical procedural violations rarely render judgments void. Practitioners should focus on fundamental jurisdictional defects or true due process violations when seeking relief under this rule. For attorney fee augmentations in collection cases, the court recognized that requiring separate motions with each enforcement action may be impractical, allowing for reasonable bundling of fee requests during ongoing collection efforts.