Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed July 15, 2022

The following rules are approved for a 45-day public comment period.

CJA04-020.03. Records access. (AMEND). Allows a petitioner in an expunged case to obtain a certified copy of the expungement order and case history upon request and in-person presentation of positive identification. This mirrors the process for adoptive parents in obtaining a certified copy of the adoption decree.

CJA06-0501. Reporting requirements for guardians and conservators. (AMEND). Incorporates changes related to H.B. 320 (Guardianship Bill of Rights), streamlines and clarifies exceptions to reporting requirements, outlines procedures and timelines for approval of and objection to reports, and requires the use of a Judicial Council-approved cover sheet and report forms that are substantially the same as Judicial Council-approved forms.

The following rules will go into effect May 23, 2022. Pursuant to CJA Rule 2-205, Expedited rulemaking procedure, the rules are subject to a 45-day comment period. 

CJA04-0508.  Guidelines for ruling on a motion to waive fees. (AMEND). The proposed amendments are in response to S.B. 87, effective May 4, 2022. Among other things, SB 87 amends provisions regarding affidavits of indigency and requires a court to find an individual indigent under certain circumstances.

CJA01-0204. Executive committees. (AMEND).

CJA01-0205. Standing and Ad Hoc Committees. (AMEND).

Creates a Standing Committee on Working Interdisciplinary Network of Guardianship Stakeholders (WINGS). Renames the Policy and Planning Committee to the “Policy, Planning, and Technology Committee.” In addition to its current responsibilities, the committee will now review and recommend technology policies and priorities. The Standing Technology Committee is dissolved.

The following rule will go into effect July 1, 2022. Pursuant to CJA Rule 2-205, Expedited rulemaking procedure, the rule is subject to a 45-day comment period. 

CJA09-0109. Presiding Judges. (AMEND). Simplifies the leadership structure of justice courts and addresses the compensation disparity related to presiding and associate presiding judges by eliminating the position of Education Director. The Associate Presiding Judge will assume education duties.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
4 thoughts on “Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closed July 15, 2022
  1. Michael Drechsel

    Comment on CJA Rule 4-508:
    I would recommend dividing subsection (5) into two parts, as follows:
    (5) If the reason for the moving party’s inability to pay is insufficient income under paragraph (4)(D), the court must consider the moving party’s:
    (5)(A) identity and residence;
    (5)(B) amount of income, including any government financial support, alimony, or child support (but not government programs where it would be unlawful to do so, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under 7 CFR 272.1(a));
    (5)(C) assets owned, including real and personal property;
    (5)(D) business interests;
    (5)(E) accounts receivable;
    (5)(F) securities, checking and savings account balances;
    (5)(G) debts; and
    (5)(H) monthly expenses.

    (6) At the time of hearing the cause, the court must question the moving party as to the moving party’s ability to pay.

    The reason for dividing subsection (5) is that the inquiry regarding the “insufficient income” factors is always required at the time the court reviews the motion / affidavit (if “insufficient income” is the asserted basis for waiving fees). The second part of subsection (5) (the first sentence in the current version of Rule 4-508) reflects statutory language for inquiring about the inability to pay when the court actually hears the merits of the underlying legal matter (i.e., the divorce, etc.). Because that is a separate process that occurs later in the proceedings, it seems wise for the language in Rule 4-508 to reflect that difference.

  2. G. Michael Westfall

    Most requests to waive fees are filed in domestic matters. A significant percentage of domestic matters are settled or resolved by default and, therefore, resolved without a hearing. How are we expected to comply with subsection 5 in a divorce case if no hearing will ever be held?

  3. Keri Sargent

    RE: CJA Rule 6-501
    Line 121, 128, 260: To more clearly define what the coversheet is, I suggest renaming it to “Order on Review of Annual Reports”. This will help delineate it in the case history and mark it as a critical document in view of the retention records rule.
    Line 218: I would suggest not requiring a request to submit when an objection is filed. The annual report is not a motion, and the coversheet is to document that a judge has reviewed the report, not in response to a motion.

  4. Michael A. Jensen

    Re CJA 6-501:

    1. Line 62: Under Utah Code 75-5-2, there is NO “license” mentioned. The word is therefore inappropriate in the proposed amendment.

    2. Lines 157, 176, 198, and 212: With respect to the judge approving a report or accounting, the words “in order” have no meaning defined. Further, in Lines 250-257, the term “Approving” is defined as meaning “the judge has reviewed it”, and under Utah Code, the word “examined” is used. Accordingly, the words/terms should be consistent and better defined as to the obligation, duty and expectation of the judge. Currently, in practice, the judge is not expected to do anything more than to assure the report or accounting has been timely filed and no objections have been timely filed. Is the intent to require the judge to actually perform a cursory audit or make some calculations? I think not.