Gullickson v. Gullickson, 2013 UT App 83 Utah Court of Appeals
April 4, 2013
Wife intended to relocate and filed a Petition to Modify. Husband opposed Wife’s removal of
the child from Utah. Wife’s Petition to
Modify requested the Decree be modified to accelerate the sale of the marital
home. At the hearing, the Commissioner
permitted the relocation and recommended modifying the Decree to allow Wife to
rent out the home or, accelerate the sale of the home. Father objected arguing that such a
modification was not permitted by URCP 106 and requested an evidentiary
hearing. The Court overruled the
objection and enforced commissioner’s order.
Father appeals.
The Court of Appeals found that Father was entitled an evidentiary
hearing as to property and that no modification should be ordered without compelling
reasons. Further, the recommendation
violated Rule 106. Once a party
demonstrates a circumstance not contemplated by the decree, the commissioner is
no longer interpreting but modifying.
Further, the Court cannot modify a property award without an evidentiary
hearing. Court of Appeals vacated and
remanded this issue.
As to relocation, the Court of Appeals advised that in relocation
hearings, trial courts should address parent-time and transportation. On objection, the trial court refused to hear
witnesses relocation testimony. The Court of appeals affirmed on
this issue and stated parties are limited by Rule 106, which
limits the evidence on objection to the evidence that was presented before the
Commissioner.
Husband also appealed the trial court’s refusal to
hear the Order to Show Cause which commissioner had reserved ruling. Court of Appeals found trial courts can choose to hear any
matter, but is not required to if the issue has been reserved by Commissioner.
Davis Dissents as to the issue of review of objections by Judge—believes
judge should have reviewed it.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment