Can courts excuse untimely attorney fees motions in guardianship cases? In re Guardianship of Matthews Explained

In In re Guardianship of Matthews, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified important requirements for attorney fees motions in guardianship proceedings and the standard for determining when a petition lacks merit.

Background and Facts

David Todd Matthews and Tina Marie Matthews Forsgren served as guardians of their incapacitated father. Their sister Tami Jean Matthews filed a petition seeking to remove them as guardians, alleging they denied her visitation and violated court orders. The guardians obtained summary judgment on June 27, 2024, then filed a motion for attorney fees eighteen days later on July 15—four days past the fourteen-day deadline in rule 73. Tami opposed the motion, arguing it was untimely and that her petition had merit.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two main issues: (1) whether the district court properly excused the guardians’ untimely attorney fees motion under rule 73 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) whether Tami’s petition was “without merit” under Utah Code section 75-5-303(2)(c), which allows fee awards in guardianship proceedings when petitions lack merit.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed the attorney fees award on both grounds. First, the court found the district court misread rule 73 when it excused the untimely motion because Tami filed an “Opposition” rather than an “Objection.” The court explained that rule 73’s “no objection” clause applies only to specific exceptions, not the general fourteen-day filing requirement. Second, applying the standard from Utah’s bad-faith statute, the court held that “without merit” means “something worse than just having a losing claim” and requires the petition to border on frivolity. Tami’s petition, which raised new allegations about the guardians’ conduct, did not meet this standard.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces the importance of strict compliance with procedural deadlines in fee motions. Courts cannot excuse untimely filings based on misinterpretations of opposing parties’ compliance with other rules. The ruling also establishes that petitions in guardianship proceedings must approach frivolity before courts can award fees under the “without merit” standard, providing important protection for parties raising legitimate concerns about guardian conduct.