MBNA AMERICA BANK, N.A. v. WILLIAMS

PER CURIAM.

Donn Williams appeals from the district court's order confirming an arbitration award in favor of MBNA America Bank, N.A.

Williams first argues that the district court erred in vacating its previous order granting summary judgment against MBNA. "A trial court's decision to grant or deny a 60(b) motion will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion." Baker v. Western Sur. Co., 757 P.2d 878, 881 (Utah Ct.App. 1988). Williams attempted to file his motion for summary judgment on December 13, 2004. In so doing, Williams served MBNA with the motion. However, the document was returned to him because it was filed in the wrong district. Williams refiled the summary judgment motion in the correct court on April 26, 2005, but did not serve MBNA on this date. After the response period to the motion lapsed, Williams sought, and the trial court granted, an order for summary judgment. MBNA then learned of the order and filed a motion under rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to vacate the order, arguing unfair surprise or excusable neglect. Because MBNA did not receive service of the April 26, 2005 filing, it could not reasonably have anticipated that it needed to file a response to the motion within the time allotted by the rules of civil procedure. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the summary judgment order and allowing MBNA an opportunity to respond to the motion.

Williams next argues that the district court erred in confirming the arbitration award because it failed to make any findings to justify the order. Rule 52(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure states that "[i]n all actions tried upon facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specifically and state separately its conclusions of law thereon." Utah R. Civ. P. 52(a). Further, in many instances "[t]he failure of the trial court to enter adequate findings requires that the judgment be vacated." Anderson v. Utah County Bd. of Comm'rs, 589 P.2d 1214, 1216 (Utah 1979). However, Utah Code section 78-31a-123 states:

After a party to an arbitration proceeding receives notice of an award in a matter not pending before a court, the party may petition the court for an order confirming the award. . . . The court shall issue a confirming order unless the award was modified or corrected pursuant to [s]ection 78-31a-121 or 78-31a-125 or is vacated pursuant to [s]ection 78-31a-124.

Utah Code Ann. § 78-31a-123 (Supp. 2006) (emphasis added). The statute, requiring the court to confirm the order, is mandatory. Accordingly, findings are not necessary when confirming an arbitration award. Therefore, the district court did not err in failing to make any findings of fact.

Affirmed.

Russell W. Bench, Presiding Judge, Judith M. Billings, Judge and William A. Thorne Jr., Judge, concur.