with the Probate Code because it leads to a different distribution of estate assets than the intestacy provisions would otherwise dictate. Supro T 21. But supplemental legal and equitable principles-explicitly invited by the legislature in Utah Code section 75-1-1038-almost always alter the outcomes of the cases to which they are applied. Otherwise, there would be no reason to apply them. Courts in Utah and other states that have adopted the Uniform Probate Code have supplemented it in several outcome-determinative ways. See Berneau v. Martino, 2009 UT 87, ¶ 10, 223 P.3d 1128 (allowing the equitable discovery rule to toll the three-year statute of limitations required in the Probate Code); Morgan v. Zions First Nat'l Bank (In re Estate of Pepper), 711 P.2d 261, 263 (Utah 1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Estate of Butler, 444 So.2d 477, 479
holding that a suit for compensatory and punitive damages against various probate judges for conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of property during the probate proceedings was not barred by the probate exception or rookerfeldman abstention doctrine recognizing that in probate cases multiple judgments final for purposes of appeal can be rendered on certain discrete issues holding that texass probate statute does not affect whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies to a case holding that final closing orders in a probate proceeding can be vacated through a rule 60b motion despite the fact that section 7531001 of the probate code discharges a personal representative from further claim or demand after a final closing order has been entered holding that the determination by the probate court in the summary proceeding provided for by section 211516 revised code that assets should be included in an estate makes the question of title res judicata as between all parties to the proceeding but the judgment of the probate court may be attacked in a subsequent action by other interested persons who were not parties to the proceeding in probate court