When can a Utah court declare a party a vexatious litigant? Watson v. Prestwich Explained

Background and facts

Keary Watson filed a parentage petition in Utah in 2019 seeking parent-time with his daughter, then nine years old and in the exclusive care of Rebecca Prestwich. Prestwich, who embraces sovereign citizen ideology, declined to meaningfully participate in the proceedings, asserting she was not subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Over the following years she filed hundreds of documents the court characterized as unintelligible, made abusive calls to court staff, assaulted a police officer during execution of a writ of assistance, and attempted to remove Child from school in Oregon using a procedurally defective writ. In November 2021, the Fourth District Court declared Prestwich a vexatious litigant under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 83 and barred her from filing further pro se pleadings. After a bench trial in August 2023 — which Prestwich did not attend — the court awarded Watson sole physical and legal custody, limited Prestwich to closely supervised parent-time, and ordered child support based on imputed income.

Key legal issues

Prestwich raised six claims on appeal: (1) improper vexatious litigant designation; (2) relief awarded beyond what Watson requested; (3) failure to deem rule 36 admissions admitted; (4) abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of assistance, temporary restraining order, and preliminary injunction; (5) child support ordered without required statutory findings; and (6) insufficient factual findings supporting the custody determination.

Court’s analysis and holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. On the vexatious litigant question, the court held that Rule 83 does not require notice and an opportunity to be heard before the initial designation — those procedural protections attach only when the court imposes enumerated follow-on orders, for which Prestwich received orders to show cause and multiple hearings. The court further held that sovereign citizen ideology cannot establish a reasonable probability of success, which is a prerequisite to defeating a vexatious litigant order. On the scope of relief, the court found that Watson’s catch-all prayer for “such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable” encompassed sole custody, and that implied consent under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b)(1) was established because Prestwich’s counsel raised no objection to the custody issue being litigated at trial. The rule 36 admissions claim failed entirely because Prestwich omitted the actual request for admissions from the record, leaving the court unable to assess their propriety — a classic inadequate record problem that compels the presumption of regularity below. The preliminary injunction and related orders survived abuse-of-discretion review given Prestwich’s assault of an officer, erratic communications, and the GAL’s finding of emotional abuse. Finally, Prestwich’s challenges to child support imputation and the adequacy of custody findings were both unpreserved — she never raised either objection in the district court, and the court declined to reach them.

Practice implications

This decision offers several lessons for Utah appellate practitioners. First, preservation is non-negotiable: objections to the legal adequacy of factual findings — whether in custody or child support — must be lodged in the trial court or they are waived. Second, record completeness is the appellant’s responsibility; failing to include a key document such as a request for admissions compels affirmance regardless of the merits. Third, courts will summarily reject sovereign citizen arguments and may impose significant sanctions — including vexatious litigant status — on parties who advance them. Finally, a broad catch-all prayer for relief combined with a failure to object at trial can constitute implied consent under Rule 15(b)(1), allowing a court to award relief not explicitly pleaded.