Uniform Probate Code gives courts "latitude to supplement statutory provisions with equitable principles" but deciding that "the particular provisions of statutory law governing void and voidable marriages and accrual of allowances and share fully covered [the circumstances of the case] and affirmatively displaced the equitable remedy" sought (internal quotation marks omitted)). So the fact that we may have supplemented other parts of the Code in the past has no bearing on our decision in this case. See infra 140 (citing cases where we have purportedly "supplemented [the code] in ... outcome-determinative ways"). In any event, in none of these past instances have we supplemented the Code in a way that conflicts with it. See, e.g., In re Estate of Pepper, 711 P.2d 261, 263 (Utah 1985) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Though we typically "reconcile the common
holding that a rule 60b motion can vacate an otherwise final closing order a result that is specifically allowed under section 751304s assertion that the rules of civil procedure including the rules concerning vacation of orders and appellate review govern formal proceedings under the probate code internal quotation marks omitted holding that the court had the discretion to grant the summary judgment motion based on the fact that it was unopposed by plaintiff during the time allowed by the rules of civil procedure holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted holding trial court erred by imposing sanctions under section 9 of civil practice and remedies code because claim for sanctions was based solely on section 10 of code and rule 13 of rules of civil procedure recognizing distinction between findings of fact under section 6711 of the family code and findings of fact under rules of civil procedure