This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Facio (P) wrote a bad check. P received notice that the check had bounced and thereafter sent a money order to cover the debt and expenses. Collection Agency Management instituted a civil action against P in a Utah state court based on the bad check. P failed to answer because he apparently believed that the money order had settled the controversy. A default judgment was entered against him. P filed a motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b). The state court judge -- Jones (D) -- denied the motion because P failed to present proof of a meritorious defense as required by the Utah Supreme Court's interpretation of Rules 55(c) and 60(b). The judgment was satisfied through garnishment of P's wages and bank account. P filed suit in federal district court seeking declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. P contends that Jones' (D)application of Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b) [was] unconstitutional to the extent that a defendant [was] required to offer proof of a meritorious defense. The District Court agreed that the Utah procedural requirement that a meritorious defense be presented before a default judgment could be set aside was unconstitutional under Peralta. It set aside the state court judgment. Ds appealed

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.