(1) It had jurisdiction because the appellant’s failure to include an opposing party’s name did not render the timely filed notice of appeal invalid and did not frustrate the purposes of rule 24 or harm the appellees.
(2) The district court erred in its application Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 73 when it excused the Guardians’ failure to meet the filing deadline because its justification for excusing the untimely filing was based on a misreading of the rule.
(3) To the extent that the district court had discretion to afford the Guardians an extension, it erred by concluding that the petition was without merit because the court’s reasons were inadequate to support its finding for three reasons: (1) the court misapplied the legal standard, (2) Petition was not a mere re-litigation, and (3) the lack of evidence was procedurally explained.