Arlin Geophysical et al v. USA
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 482 Motion for 60-Day Extension of Redemption Period. A subsequent motion for extension of time under Rule 6(b)(1)(B) may be filed by no later than 12/4/17. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 11/20/17 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
ARLIN GEOPHYSICAL & LAURA
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME
Case No. 2:08-cv-00414-DN-EJF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
District Judge David Nuffer
Defendant & Counterclaim Plaintiff,
JOHN E. WORTHEN, et al.,
Counterclaim Defendant John E. Worthen seeks a sixty-day extension of the redemption
period of certain real property sold at judicial execution sale to Salt Lake County on May 24,
2017. 1 Because Mr. Worthen fails to establish good cause for the requested extension, his
Motion is DENIED.
“The right of redemption … is a statutory right provided in section 78B-6-906 of the
Utah Code.” 2 “The procedures for exercising the right to redemption are set out in rule 69C of
the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.” 3 This rule provides that to redeem, the redemptioner must
pay the amount required to the property’s purchaser and must serve on the purchaser:
Motion for Extension of Time Pursuant to FRCP Rule 6(b)(1)(A) (“Motion”), docket no. 482, filed Nov. 17, 2017.
Pyper v. Bond, 258 P.3d 575, 578 (Utah 2011).
(1) a certified copy of the judgment or lien under which the redemptioner claims
the right to redeem;
(2) an assignment, properly acknowledged if necessary to establish the claim; and
(3) an affidavit showing the amount due on the judgment or lien. 4
The rule further provides that “[t]he property may be redeemed within 180 days after the sale.” 5
“In most instances, ‘strict compliance with the [180-day] redemption period is . . .
required.’” 6 However, “in exceptional circumstances, a court sitting in equity may extend a
redemption period” 7 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1), which provides:
When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good
cause, extend the time: (A) . . . if a request is made before the original time or its
extension expires; or (B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party
failed to act because of excusable neglect. 8
Circumstances that may justify an extension of the redemption period include: “fraud
accident, mistake, or waiver” 9 or “where (1) a debtor’s property is sold at a grossly inadequate
price and (2) there were irregularities during the sale that contributed to the inadequacy of price
or circumstances of unfairness during the redemption period cause by the conduct of the party
benefitted by the sale.” 10 Some of these circumstances, recited in Utah case law, seem
inapplicable to a motion to extend the redemption period but are recited because Utah law
applies the same standards to motions for extensions of the redemption period as are applied to
motions to set sales aside. 11 However, the more general principle is that extension of the
UTAH R. CIV. P. 69C(c).
. Id. at 69C(d).
Pyper, 258 P.3d at 578 (quoting Huston v. Lewis, 818 P.2d 531, 535 (Utah 1991)).
Huston, 818 P.2d at 535 (citing Mollerup v. Storage Sys. Int’l, 569 P.2d 1122, 1124 (Utah 1977)).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1).
Mollerup, 569 P.2d at 1124.
Pyper, 258 P.3d at 578.
redemption period should occur “only when the equities of the case are compelling and ‘move
the conscience of the court.’” 12 And “the mere allegation of a dispute is generally not sufficient
to justify an extension of the redemption period.” 13 “To determine otherwise would allow others
similarly situated to simply appear ex parte, assert a dispute . . . or some other self-serving
matter, and the effect would be to abridge the rights of a purchaser at sale.” 14
Mr. Worthen seeks a sixty-day extension of the redemption period of certain real property
sold to Salt Lake County on May 24, 2017. 15 He asserts, without documentary proof, that he
“notified Salt Lake County that he was redeeming the Property.” 16 He does include the letter in
which Salt Lake County informed him that the property was “not subject to any redemption
rights” and that he had “not complied with all of the steps necessary to invoke the redemption
rights that he claims to have.” 17 Mr. Worthen further asserts that he has attempted to clarify the
basis for Salt Lake County’s position, but was unsuccessful due to Salt Lake County’s counsel
being out of the office. 18 Therefore, Mr. Worthen submits that good cause exists to extend the
redemption period to allow time the issue of “whether or not the Property is subject to
Mr. Worthen’s mere assertion of a dispute with Salt Lake County as to whether the
property is subject to redemption is insufficient to justify an extension of the redemption
Huston, 818 P.2d at 535 (quoting Mollerup, 569 P.2d at 1124).
Id. at 536.
Id. (quoting Mollerup, 569 P.2d 1125).
Id. at 2.
Id. at 2, Exhibit A.
Id. at 2.
period. 20 Mr. Worthen offers no facts indicating that he complied, or attempted to comply, with
the requirements of rule 69C(c) when informing Salt Lake County of his intent to redeem the
property. Nor does he indicate that he has attempted to comply with the dispute procedures of
Moreover, Mr. Worthen does not state when he informed Salt Lake County of his intent
to redeem the property. His Motion indicates only that Salt Lake County responded to his notice
by letter dated November 14, 2017. 21 Mr. Worthen filed his Motion three days later on
November 17, 2017—just three days before the expiration of the 180-day redemption period. It
is unknown whether the delay in Mr. Worthen becoming aware of Salt Lake County’s position
regarding his ability to redeem the property is attributable to his own action or inaction, or to
action or inaction of Salt Lake County, or some combination of both. In the absence of these
facts, it cannot be determined that Mr. Worthen “acted in an equitable fashion” thereby entitling
him to the equitable relief he seeks. 22 Therefore, Mr. Worthen has failed to establish good cause
for the requested extension of the redemption period and his Motion is DENIED.
This denial of Mr. Worthen’s Motion under rule 6(b)(1)(A) is without prejudice to a
subsequent motion for extension of time under rule 6(b)(1)(B) that is filed by no later than
Monday, December 4, 2017.
Huston, 818 P.2d at 535; Mollerup, 569 P.2d at 1124-25.
Motion at Exhibit A.
Huston, 818 P.2d at 536-37; Mollerup, 569 P.2d at 1124-25.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Worthen’s Motion 23 is DENIED without prejudice
to a subsequent motion for extension of time under rule 6(b)(1)(B) that is filed by no later than
Monday, December 4, 2017.
Signed November 20, 2017.
BY THE COURT
District Judge David Nuffer
Docket no. 482, filed Nov. 17, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?