Can Utah judges include commentary when certifying bias affidavits under Rule 63(b)? Poulsen v. Frear Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed important procedural issues regarding judicial bias affidavits and Rule 11 sanctions in Poulsen v. Frear, establishing critical limitations on what trial judges may include in certification orders and the due process requirements for imposing sanctions.

Background and Facts

Lynn Poulsen filed an alienation of affections claim against Karren Frear and represented herself throughout the proceedings. During the litigation, Poulsen filed an affidavit under Rule 63(b) claiming that Judge Medley was biased against pro se litigants and specifically against her. When Judge Medley certified the affidavit to another judge for legal sufficiency review, he included substantial commentary defending his actions and explaining his version of events. The certifying judge found no basis for recusal. After a three-day bench trial ruling against Poulsen, Judge Medley imposed Rule 11 sanctions without providing Poulsen an opportunity to respond.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three primary issues: whether Judge Medley’s comments in his Rule 63(b) certifying order were improper, whether the judge showed actual bias at trial, and whether the Rule 11 sanctions were imposed in violation of due process.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that Judge Medley’s written comments in the certifying order violated the rule established in Young v. Patterson, which prohibits judges from including advocacy or comment in Rule 63(b) orders. However, the error was harmless because Poulsen’s bias affidavit was legally insufficient on its face. The court found no actual bias at trial, noting that while the judge interrupted both parties numerous times, this did not demonstrate the deep-seated antagonism required for disqualification. Regarding sanctions, the court held that due process requires notice and opportunity to respond before Rule 11 sanctions are imposed, even if a formal hearing is not required.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that trial judges must strictly limit Rule 63(b) certifying orders to relevant record portions without commentary or advocacy. For practitioners seeking Rule 11 sanctions, courts must provide adequate procedural protections through show cause orders or similar mechanisms allowing response. The case also demonstrates that bias claims require allegations of extreme behavior showing deep-seated antagonism rather than mere unfavorable rulings or interruptions during proceedings.