Young v. Hagel, 2020 UT App 100 (June 25, 2020)

In this custody case, the court of appeals held that the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion under Rule 60(b)(1) to set aside a default order that had been entered because the mother failed to appear within 21 days of her counsel’s withdrawal after four years of litigation.  Counsel should not automatically treat a pro se litigant whose counsel has withdrawn as if in default after the 21 days provided for in Rule 74(c) has expired, but instead should continue to serve copies of filings on the litigant, but may, in appropriate cases, seek sanctions from the court if the litigant continues to fail to appear.