In this appeal, the court clarified that an objection to a ruling by a commissioner is independent, and not a […]
A mother’s attorney emailed the father a Google Drive link to the files, rather than the files themselves. Father objected.
¶30 On appeal, Father argues the court’s conclusion that Mother’s efforts were sufficient conflicts with the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, he claims that “[e]mailing a link to a website does not satisfy any of the options available under Rule 5 and in this case did not allow [Father] access to the Erickson v. Erickson 20170100-CA 14 2018 UT App 184 documents.” We agree with the district court that emailing a link to a Google Drive folder that contained the exhibits was sufficient to satisfy the service requirements of rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 5(b)(3) establishes that a paper is properly served by “emailing it to the email address provided by the person . . . if the person has agreed to accept service by email or has an electronic filing account.”5 Utah R. Civ. P. 5(b)(3)(B). We see no material difference between emailing a file as an attachment and emailing a link to a Google Drive account that contains the file.
Erickson v. Erickson, 2018 App 184 (Filed September 27, 2018)
Read entire case HERE.
In this appeal, the court clarified that an objection to a ruling by a commissioner is independent, and not a […]
In a previous Utah Supreme Court case of Dahl v. Dahl, 2015 UT 79, the court rule in the facts of […]
Fox v. Fox, 2022 UT App 88 (Filed July 14, 2022) Facts: The parties married in 1997 and wife filed […]