Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Utah » Court of Appeals » 1999 » AFS, Inc. v. Olsen Case No. 981800-CA Filed August 19, 1999
AFS, Inc. v. Olsen Case No. 981800-CA Filed August 19, 1999
State: Utah
Court: Court of Appeals
Docket No: 981800-CA Filed August 19
Case Date: 08/19/1999
Plaintiff: AFS, Inc.
Defendant: Olsen Case No. 981800-CA Filed August 19, 1999
Preview:AFS, Inc. v. Olsen. Filed August 19, 1999
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
----ooOoo----

AFS, Inc.,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.
Paula M. Olsen,
Defendant and Appellant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 981800-CA

F I L E D
August 19, 1999


Third District, West Valley Department The Honorable Ann Boyden
Attorneys: Paula M. Olsen, Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se Kevin G. Richards and Raymond B. Rounds, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Wilkins, Billings, and Jackson.
PER CURIAM:
Olsen asks that we overturn the trial court's award of court costs to AFS and that she be awarded those costs based upon Utah R. Civ. P. 8(d). She contends that because AFS did not respond to her objections to its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, her objections should be deemed admitted. However, Rule 8(d) does not apply to these facts. According to the Rule:
Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damage,
are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading.
Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are not considered pleadings and no response is required. Instead, Utah Code Jud. Admin. R 4-504(2) applies. That rule allows an opposing party to file an objection to proposed findings and conclusions as Olsen did. Id. However, the drafter of proposed findings and conclusions is not required to respond and objections to which there is no response are not deemed admitted. Id. Rather, the trial court considers the proposed finding and conclusions and any objections and either amends the findings and conclusions or signs them as proposed. In this case, the trial court implicitly rejected Olsen's objections when it signed the findings and conclusions submitted by AFS.
Since Rule 8(d) does not apply, the trial court was not required to follow it. Affirmed.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/afs.htm[5/10/2013 6:26:02 PM]
AFS, Inc. v. Olsen. Filed August 19, 1999
Michael J. Wilkins, Presiding Judge
Judith M. Billings, Judge
Norman H. Jackson, Judge
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/afs.htm[5/10/2013 6:26:02 PM]
Download afs.pdf

Utah Law

Utah State Laws
    > Utah Gun Laws
    > Utah Statutes
Utah Tax
    > Utah State Tax
Utah Labor Laws
Utah Agencies
    > Utah DMV

Comments

Tips