Peck v. Peck, 2020 UT App 14 (Jan. 24, 2020)
Jan 24, 2020
In this divorce action, husband’s attorney in the trial court did not object to a proposed order that incorrectly identified the length of the marriage for a QDRO calculation. Husband filed a Rule 60(b) motion relying on the residual clause, which the district court denied. The court of appeals reversed. As the court explained: “Gross attorney negligence that is ‘too egregious and exceptional to be encompassed by Rule 60(b)(1)’ may be assessed under the residuary clause.” The court remanded the case to allow the district court to determine in the first instance whether the mistake fit within the court’s stated standard.