Jensen v. Cannon, 2020 UT App 124 (Aug. 27, 2020)

More than a decade after the divorce decree was entered, the wife filed this separate action seeking relief from the decree on the basis the husband had failed to disclose certain assets during the divorce proceeding.  In affirming the district court’s disposition of the claims, the Court of Appeals confirmed that a claim for fraudulent nondisclosure requires proof of fraudulent intent.  It further rejected the argument that Rule 60(d) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to fraud on the court, but held the district court was nevertheless correct in granting judgment in the husband’s favor on the wife’s non-fraud claims; the wife’s negligence-based claims were not viable bases for a collateral attack to a judgment under Rule 60(d).   Judge Harris issued a concurring opinion, concurring in part and concurring in the result, in which he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the required elements of a fraudulent nondisclosure claim.  In Judge Harris’s view, the majority opinion improperly added a fourth element to that claim.