Goggin v. Goggin, 2013 UT
16, Utah Supreme Court, March 15, 2013
Husband and Wife Divorced.
Wife was awarded her all her attorney fees and receiver costs based on
Husband’s actions of avoiding discovery and failing to comply with court
orders. Court did not distinguish between
the fees awarded. Wife also received a
disproportionate distribution of property based on Husband’s dissipation of
assets. Husband appealed.
The Supreme Court found that any fees that were related to failure
to provide discovery, or fees incurred to enforce the order were
appropriate. The Supreme Court enumerated
the four reasons a court can award fees for non-compliance: (1) Fees incurred
enforcing an order, (2) Fees incurred under Rule 37 for the failure to comply
with discovery, (3) Inherent Powers to reimburse parties for costs incurred defending
bad faith actions, and (4) Inherent powers to sanction attorneys and litigants
for bad behavior (i.e. Rule 11 sanctions).
However, the awards can never exceed the actual cost incurred by the
innocent party. The Court Affirmed
any award that was based on Husband’s bad acts, but Reverses any award for
Wife’s out of pocket expenses in excess of reasonable attorney fees.
The trial court also found that Husband had dissipated marital
assets, however instead of simply awarding wife her portion of the dissipated
asset; the trial court awarded her the entire amount of the dissipated
asset. The Supreme Court Reversed and ordered that court
equitably divide the marital estate, without considering Husband’s fault.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment