Court of Appeals hears challenge to default judgment over missing Rule 8 warning

May it please the court. The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Checker Prop Utah v. Butcher on a question the appellant characterized as driven by recent rule changes: whether the omission of mandatory Rule 8 warning language in pleadings opens the door to Rule 60(b) relief from a default judgment.

Steven Bergman, counsel for appellants Kristen Butcher and Heather Goodson, told the court the amendments to Rules 7, 8 and 36 (effective 05/01/2021) were intended to add a mandatory caution and to place the omission within the range of grounds that may support a Rule 60(b) motion. "If the warning is not included on the complaint or dispositive motion...that would be grounds for a motion to vacate a judgment pursuant to Rule 60," Bergman said, arguing the district court erred by excusing the omission because it relied on similar language in a separate summons.

Bergman also raised…