Can a deficient postjudgment motion toll the time for filing an appeal? Bahsoun v. Mooney Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Bahsoun v. Mooney addressed whether a poorly drafted postjudgment document can toll the time for filing an appeal under Rule 4(b) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Background and Facts

Following entry of a divorce decree on September 24, 2025, Colleen Mooney filed her notice of appeal on October 25, 2025—thirty-one days after the decree and one day beyond the thirty-day deadline under Rule 4(a). Mooney argued that her October 22, 2025 document titled “Respondent’s Request for a New Trial and Reconsideration of Terms in Decree” tolled the appeal time under Rule 4(b), which provides that certain postjudgment motions extend the time to appeal.

Key Legal Issues

The court examined whether Mooney’s single-paragraph document qualified as a Rule 59 motion for new trial sufficient to toll the appeal deadline. Rule 4(b)(1)(D) specifically provides that “a motion for a new trial under Rule 59” will toll the time to appeal, but motions to reconsider and “other similarly titled motions will not toll the time for appeal because they are not recognized by [the] rules.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals emphasized that “the form of a motion does matter because it directs the court and litigants to the specific, and available, relief sought.” Mooney’s document failed to cite Rule 59 in either the caption or body and provided no legal basis or grounds for a new trial. Although an improper caption alone is not fatal, the motion must have “some substantive basis” to enable construction as a motion within the rules. The court found the document insufficient even under a generous interpretation and noted that the district court had struck it as frivolous.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that practitioners must comply with both formal and substantive requirements when filing postjudgment motions intended to toll appeal deadlines. Simply using terms like “new trial” without proper rule citation and supporting grounds will not preserve appellate rights. The thirty-day appeal deadline remains strictly enforced when postjudgment motions fail to meet rule requirements.