Petitioner's Motion in Limine" {opposition memorandum) the Division asserted that the Commission, in the interest of justice, should relieve the parties from the stipulation because At the time of the stipulation, counsel for the parties relied upon the representations of [Yeargin's counsel] in drafting and agreeing to paragraph 12 of the Joint Stipulation. Obviously, subsequent investigation showed the error should anyone interpret paragraph 12 to state that Yeargin Ine. had not purchased materials. To that extent, the Joint Stipulation reflects a mistake of fact. «[ 24 We conclude that the Division's opposition memorandum, though not entitled such, was in substance a request to be relieved from the stipulation. See Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Bastian, 657 P.2d 1346, 1347-48 (Utah 1983) (<HOLDING>); Howard v. Howard, 11 Utah 2d 149, 152, 356
holding that because pleadings are to be liberally construed if the nature of the motion is clear from its substance an improper caption is not fatal holding that pro se pleadings will be liberally construed holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed holding to ensure substantial justice to the parties the pleadings must be liberally construed holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed