Bennett v Bigelow

Bennett appealed summary judgment to Bigelow on his petition for extraordinary relief arguing a parole requirement that he complete sex offender treatment which required identifying victims of uncharged offenses violated his 5th Amendment rights. The Court reversed and remanded. It first held that the district court erred in not considering Bennett’s second request for appointed counsel because Rule of Civil procedure 54 allows a trial court to change its ruling on any motion prior to judgment and thus the second attempt to get counsel was not barred. It next held that Bennett had standing under the circumstances. It held that genuine issues of material fat exist concerning the 5th Amendment claim as Bennett may be required to provide incriminating answers including victim identity and a narrative how the abuse occurred including how control was exerted and when and where the abuse occurred and there is a reasonable inference that failure to answer the questions would result in parole revocation and it is unclear what disclosures are required to complete the treatment program and, joining the 9th and 10th Circuits, held the threat of parole revocation is sufficiently coercive as to trigger 5th Amendment protections as a parolee’s liberty interest is similar to a probationer’s and the United States Supreme court has held conditioning continued probation on providing incriminating disclosures is compulsion.

In the Matter of the Estate of Rufus .C. Willey (McBroom v Schmunk

McBroom appealed the denial of his Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions seeking relief from the orders approving sale of his interests in the estate. The Court affirmed. It held that because McBroom alleged fraud in his motion, it was brought under 60(b)(3) not the catchall 60(b)(6), was subject to eth 90-day limitation period and was untimely by over 40 years. It held the 60(b)(4) argument, which may have been untimely as well though Utah law was unsettled in this point and the argument was not briefed and thus not decided, was properly rejected by the district court because the trial court in 1973 had subject matter jurisdiction over the sale of McBroom’s interest as there was no requirement he receive notice at the time, his mother could waive notice at the time even though she had a conflict of interest, McBroom was a minor under the laws in effect a the time of the proceeding and when the final judgment was issued, the sale orders merely implemented the estate judgment and did not alter that judgment and there was personal jurisdiction over McBroom in the 1973 proceeding as he petitioned for appointment of a guardian and he held property in Utah at the time of the proceeding. It finally held there was no evidence of self-dealing by mother as she was not acting as administrator in the 1973 action.