tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66887802912973224672024-02-08T04:05:01.721-08:00Utah Family BLAWGBefore the Utah Advanced Reports have summarized it, I have.
Brought to you by:Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-38105263102846197612013-12-31T08:57:00.001-08:002013-12-31T08:57:51.584-08:00Trial Court Must Articulate a Reasonable Basis and Adequate Findings When Rejecting the Expert Conclusions <div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute3"><i>Woodward v. La Franca</i>, </span><span class="CharAttribute4">2013 UT App 147 Utah Court of Appeals
Court June 13, 2013</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1" style="mso-pagination: widow-orphan lines-together; page-break-after: avoid;">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
Father filed a Petition
to Modify requesting custody. Mother engaged
a therapist in an attempt to obtain evidence against Father and to confirm
allegations of abuse. When the therapist
failed to provide evidence, Mother obtained a second therapist who also
determined that Mother<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Batang;">’</span>s allegations were unfounded. At the Rule 106 hearing, Father was awarded
custody because of mother<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Batang;">’</span>s actions of having the child constantly
interrogated and because of her coaching the child. The court appointed a special master and a
custody evaluator. Mother objected. At the
objection hearing, the therapists, special master and a custody evaluator agreed with the commissioner<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Batang;">’</span>s recommendation. The court, however, found
that each expert was either unpersuasive and/or not credible and sustained the
objection and returned custody to Mother. Father Appeals.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
Court of Appeals found
that the trial court must articulate a reasonable basis and adequate findings
when rejecting the expert conclusions and failure to do so is an abuse of
discretion. The Court of Appeals then
reviewed the testimony and criticized the trial court<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: Batang;">’</span>s summary
dismissal of important evidence of coaching and possible mental illness of
Mother.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoNormal">
The trial court further
erred when finding that because Mother is an acceptable parent, she should
retain custody. The Court pointed out
that a best interest evaluation gives no preference to status quo, but must
evaluate which parent is the <i>more</i>
acceptable parent. Because the court
failed to make adequate findings as to the expert testimony, and because it improperly
evaluated the best interest, this case was Reversed and Remanded.<o:p></o:p></div>
<span class="CharAttribute8"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;"><br /></span></span>
<span class="CharAttribute8"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">Full
opinion available at</span></span><span class="CharAttribute9"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">:</span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-font-family: Batang; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Batang","serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt; mso-hansi-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/woodward061313.pdf">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/woodward061313.pdf </a></span>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-2842042459725029712013-12-31T08:55:00.000-08:002013-12-31T08:55:29.837-08:00Child Welfare: Court Cannot Reduce a Parent's Parent-Time at Review Hearing if Parent Objects Prior to the End of the Hearing<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>E.D. v. State of Utah</i>, 2013 UT App 162 Utah Court of Appeals Court June 27, 2013<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Father appeared at review hear at which the court awarded
custody of the parties' minor child to Mother.
Father objected at the very end of the hearing and requested an
evidentiary hearing. The Court denied the motion. Father appealed. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Court of Appeals found that Father's objection was
timely under U.C.A section 78A-6-1103 and that based on his objection he was
entitled an evidentiary hearing. However,
on appeal, Father failed to demonstrate
that if an evidentiary hearing had been held, that he would have obtained a
different result. Because he failed to
demonstrate prejudice, the Court of Appeals found this to be harmless error and
chose not to reverse the trial court.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="ParaAttribute3">
<span class="CharAttribute8"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">Full opinion available at</span></span><span class="CharAttribute9"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">:</span></span><span class="CharAttribute19"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> </span></span><span class="CharAttribute14"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/E.D.%20v.%20State%20of%20Utah,%202013%20UT%20App%20162%20%20Utah%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20Court%20June%2027,%202013%20%20Father%20appeared%20at%20review%20hear%20at%20which%20the%20court%20awarded%20custody%20of%20the%20parties'%20minor%20child%20to%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Mother.%20%20Father%20objected%20at%20the%20very%20end%20of%20the%20hearing%20and%20requested%20an%20evidentiary%20hearing.%20%20The%20%20%20%20%20Court%20denied%20the%20motion.%20Father%20appealed.%20%20%20The%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20found%20that%20Father's%20objection%20was%20timely%20under%20U.C.A%20section%2078A-6-1103%20and%20that%20based%20on%20his%20objection%20he%20was%20entitled%20an%20evidentiary%20hearing.%20%20However,%20on%20appeal,%20Father%20failed%20to%20%20%20%20demonstrate%20that%20if%20an%20evidentiary%20hearing%20had%20been%20held,%20that%20he%20would%20have%20obtained%20a%20different%20result.%20%20Because%20he%20failed%20to%20demonstrate%20prejudice,%20the%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20found%20this%20to%20be%20harmless%20error%20and%20chose%20not%20to%20reverse%20the%20trial%20court.%20%20Full%20opinion%20available%20at:%20http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_cb036011013.pdf"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_cb036011013.pdf</span> </a></span><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-27607305033298888482013-12-31T08:53:00.004-08:002013-12-31T08:53:34.247-08:003 Grounds for Appeal without Preservation and Contested Adoption Petitions Must be Resolved Through Trial<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute3"><i>S.C. v. State of Utah,</i> </span><span class="CharAttribute4">2013 UT 26 Utah Supreme Court May 7, 2013</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">Grandmother sought to adopt her grandson. Mother</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s parental
rights were terminated and Foster Parents also sought to adopt. The trial court
found that under </span><span class="CharAttribute6">In Re: A.B.</span><span class="CharAttribute5">, the foster
parents had priority and they were permitted to adopt. Grandmother appeals. This case was certified directly to the
Supreme Court by the Court of Appeals.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">The Court first finds that while Grandmother</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s Brief
failed to cite where in the record she preserved her claim, that in the reply
brief the preservation issue was adequately addressed. And that while </span><span class="CharAttribute6">A.B.</span><span class="CharAttribute5"> was not
directly addressed by Grandmother at the trial level, she did address the </span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">“</span></span><span class="CharAttribute6">best interest</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">”</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5"> standard
which opens the door to that argument on appeal.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">The Court found that 1) the Best Interest of the child is paramount and
2) in order to evaluate the stability and the likelihood of future disruption
in adoptive placements. In order to
evaluate those factors, a full evidentiary hearing is required in contested
cases like this one. </span><span class="CharAttribute4">Reversed and remanded.</span><span class="CharAttribute5"> </span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">Courts have the option of hearing the Petitions together or having
separate hearings on the adoption case when privacy is a concern.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<span class="CharAttribute8"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">Full
opinion available at</span></span><span class="CharAttribute9"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">:</span></span><span class="CharAttribute19"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Batang, serif;"><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/InreCC1326050713.pdf"><span class="CharAttribute21"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/InreCC1326050713.pdf</span></span></a></span>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-47071385128084768152013-12-31T08:52:00.004-08:002013-12-31T08:52:39.352-08:00Continual Attempts to Contact is Stalking<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute3"><i>Williams v. Williams</i>, </span><span class="CharAttribute4">2013 UT App 111 Utah Court of Appeals
May 2, 2013</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">Parties divorced and Jeri (Ex-wife) requested that Clark (ex-husband)
not contact her, but to direct communications to her attorney. Clark continued to contact her.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">Jeri moved and redacted her address from court filings, Clark searched
for and found her new home and sent her a text message with a picture of
it. He was contacted by the police and
agreed not to contact Jeri. In the next
three months, he sent at least 16 emails to Jeri. He sent her an envelope with two photographs
of a nude woman. Finding that he had
been blocked from calling Jeri, Clark contacted the cellular phone company,
impersonated Jeri, had the block removed and then called her several
times. Clark then went to Jeris</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5"> home to
confront her. When questioned at trial
about these incidents, Clark responded, </span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">“</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">I wanted to
leave no doubt in her mind how I felt.</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">”</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">
The trial court entered the stalking injunction. Clark Appealed.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">Clark argued that his conduct should not have caused more than </span><span class="CharAttribute6">mere anxiety</span><span class="CharAttribute5"> or </span><span class="CharAttribute6">annoyance</span><span class="CharAttribute5"> and it was
not </span><span class="CharAttribute6">outrageous</span><span class="CharAttribute5"> or </span><span class="CharAttribute6">intolerable</span><span class="CharAttribute5">. The Court disagreed. The Court noted that the requirement for
outrageous conduct was removed in current version of the statute, however even
if outrageous conduct was required, Clark</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s actions are
sufficient for the entry of a stalking injunction. Particularly disturbing are his efforts to
find her when she concealed her address and to unblock his cell phone
calls. </span><span class="CharAttribute4">Affirmed.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<span class="CharAttribute8"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">Full
opinion available at</span></span><span class="CharAttribute9"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;">:</span></span><span class="CharAttribute19"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang; mso-fareast-language: KO; mso-font-kerning: 1.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Batang, serif;"><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/williams208050213.pdf"><span class="CharAttribute21"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/williams208050213.pdf</span></span></a></span>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-36250145741965333782013-12-31T08:50:00.000-08:002013-12-31T08:50:44.065-08:00Transitional Alimony Can be Reviewed without a Showing of Change in Circumstances<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute3"><i>Beal v. Beal, </i></span><span class="CharAttribute4">2013 UT App 105 Utah Court of Appeals
April 25, 2013</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">Parties were divorced in 2007 and wife was awarded transitional alimony
and a review date was set for the issue of alimony. At the time of review, Wife failed to produce
various documents, namely a trust of which she was the beneficiary. At the first hearing, the Court was unable to
determine what the appropriate ongoing alimony amount should be, if any.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">At the second hearing, Wife did not appear and the hearing was again
continued. Wife finally produced a copy
of the trust, but did not produce the accounting. At the third hearing, the trial court noted
discrepancies between wife</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s testimony and her financial
declaration and ended the transitional alimony.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">Wife appealed and argued that there was no basis to change the alimony
because there was no substantial change of circumstance since the decree. The Court of Appeals found that an award of </span><span class="CharAttribute6">transitional
alimony</span><span class="CharAttribute5"> is intended to be temporary, particularly when the Court sets a
hearing to review the alimony award.
Therefore, the court could modify without a substantial change in
circumstance and the modification was appropriate because of Wife</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s failure to
comply with reasonable discovery requests. </span><span class="CharAttribute4">Affirmed.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="ParaAttribute3">
<span class="CharAttribute8"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">Full opinion available at</span></span><span class="CharAttribute9"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">:</span></span><span class="CharAttribute9"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/beal042513.pdf"><span class="CharAttribute21"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/beal042513.pdf</span></span></a><span class="CharAttribute28"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Courier; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Courier;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-59291246635372401352013-12-31T08:49:00.000-08:002013-12-31T08:49:05.377-08:00Retirement Can be Valued at Time of Separation<div class="ParaAttribute0" style="line-height: 115%;">
<span class="CharAttribute3"><i>Donnelly v. Donnelly</i>, </span><span class="CharAttribute4">2013 UT App 84 Utah Court of Appeals
April 4, 2013</span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">In a temporary order the trial court ordered Father pay child support,
alimony, and the children</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s medical expenses. Mother relocated and Father bore the costs of
visiting the children.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">At trial, the court entered a decree awarding lower child support and
alimony amounts, but did not make the amounts retroactive. After the trial, Mother moved to divide
retirement. The court divided the
retirement with value at the time of separation. The Court also denied Father</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s motion for
credit towards his arrearage for the expenses he incurred to visit the
children. Father appeals the alimony
award and expenses incurred for parent-time.
Mother appeals the valuation date of the retirement.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">As to alimony, Father failed to preserve the pretrial order of
alimony. Father made several arguments about
Wife</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s diminished
need while living with family and her income from gifts from family. The Court of Appeals found that the trial
court took note of gifts when making the alimony award and the award was </span><span class="CharAttribute4">not an abuse
of discretion</span><span class="CharAttribute5">.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">As to reimbursement of transportation costs for Father</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s
parent-time, the Court of Appeals found no statutory authority for the
requested reimbursement and it </span><span class="CharAttribute4">was not an abuse of discretion</span><span class="CharAttribute5"> to deny the
reimbursement because Father failed to raise the issue at trial and made no
motion to reopen evidence to address that issue.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">As to valuation of the retirement, the Court found that generally
retirements are valued at the time of the decree, however, when significant
time (in this case 5 years) passes between the separation and Decree, it is </span><span class="CharAttribute4">not an abuse
of discretion</span><span class="CharAttribute5"> to value it at the time of separation.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute3">
<span class="CharAttribute8"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">Full opinion available at</span></span><span class="CharAttribute9"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">:</span></span><span class="CharAttribute9"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/donnelly040413.pdf"><span class="CharAttribute21"><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/donnelly040413.pdf</span></span></a><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute3">
<br /></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-62308447705424469502013-12-31T07:44:00.000-08:002014-05-21T16:29:48.665-07:00Court Can Modify Decree without Evidentiary Hearing. Commissioner Cannot Modify Property Agreements Under Rule 106.<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute3"><i>Gullickson v. Gullickson</i>, </span><span class="CharAttribute4">2013 UT App 83 Utah Court of Appeals
April 4, 2013</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">Wife intended to relocate and filed a Petition to Modify. Husband opposed Wife</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s removal of
the child from Utah. Wife</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">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</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s order.
Father appeals.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">The Court of Appeals found that Father was entitled an evidentiary
hearing as to property and that no modification should be ordered without </span><span class="CharAttribute6">compelling
reasons.</span><span class="CharAttribute5"> 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 </span><span class="CharAttribute4">vacated and
remanded </span><span class="CharAttribute5">this issue.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">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 </span><span class="CharAttribute4">affirmed on
this issue and stated </span><span class="CharAttribute5">parties are limited by Rule 106, which
limits the evidence on objection to the evidence that was presented before the
Commissioner.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">Husband also appealed the trial court</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">’</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">s refusal to
hear the Order to Show Cause which commissioner had reserved ruling. Court of Appeals found trial courts </span><span class="CharAttribute6">can choose</span><span class="CharAttribute5"> to hear any
matter, but is not required to if the issue has been reserved by Commissioner.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<span class="CharAttribute5">Davis Dissents as to the issue of review of objections by Judge</span><span class="CharAttribute5"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-ascii-font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">—</span></span><span class="CharAttribute5">believes
judge should have reviewed it.</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Trebuchet MS";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute1">
<br /></div>
<div class="ParaAttribute2">
<span class="CharAttribute8"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">Full opinion available at</span></span><span class="CharAttribute9"><span style="font-size: 7.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;">:</span></span><span class="CharAttribute9"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 7.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Tahoma; mso-fareast-font-family: Batang;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/gullickson040413.pdf"><span class="CharAttribute12"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/gullickson040413.pdf</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="ParaAttribute2">
<br /></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-67301546942238317222013-08-08T06:37:00.000-07:002013-08-08T06:37:29.627-07:00Four Types of Non-Compliance-Based Attorney Fees Awards and Fault and Non-Compliance Cannot be Factors in Property Distribution<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Goggin v. Goggin, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2013 UT
16, Utah Supreme Court, March 15, 2013</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">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 <b>Affirmed</b>
any award that was based on Husband’s bad acts, but <b>Reverses</b></span><span style="font-size: 10.0pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">any award for
Wife’s out of pocket expenses in excess of reasonable attorney fees</span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";">.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">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 <b>Reversed</b> and ordered that court
equitably divide the marital estate, without considering Husband’s fault. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">: </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Goggin1316031513.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Goggin1316031513.pdf</span></a><span style="color: red; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10.0pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-15121134775258326652013-08-08T06:36:00.000-07:002013-08-08T06:36:11.799-07:003 Ways for Unwed Biological Father to Establish Paternity<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">In Re: R.M., L.M. v. J.B
and A.B., </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2013 UT App 27, Utah Court of Appeals, January 31, 2013</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">L.M. is the biological Father of R.M. He filed a voluntary
declaration of paternity signed by Mother with the State Office of Vital
Statistics. Mother married J.B. and J.B.
filed a Petition for adoption. The adoption was granted. Father motion to set aside the Decree of
Adoption was granted because Father was not provided notice. The trial court later found that Father’s
filing of a declaration of paternity was insufficient to establish his right to
without consent to the adoption. Trial
Court allowed the interlocutory appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court of Appeals found that simply because a party may fall
into more than one category in U.C.A. 78B-6-120(1), does not mean that the person
must follow all the requirements of each category he falls. (e.g. An unwed biological father does not
have to file a declaration of paternity and also strictly comply with U.C.A.
§78B-6-121(1)(d)-(f)).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court found that there are three ways for an unwed biological
father to establish paternity and be entitled to consent to adoption: (1) File
a voluntary declaration (2) be adjudicated as the child’s father, or (3)
strictly comply with U.C.A. §78B-6-121(1)(d)-(f).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court made a special note that since<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">In this case, Father filed a declaration of paternity and is
entitled to withhold consent. <b>Reversed and Remanded.<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">: </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/rm006013113.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/rm006013113.pdf</span></a><span style="color: red; font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-21152817793687870602013-08-08T06:34:00.002-07:002013-08-08T06:34:36.487-07:00No Right to Competency Hearings + No Need to be Competent to Stand Trail in Child Welfare Matters <div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">M.B. v. State of Utah, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2013 UT App
7, Utah Court of Appeals, January 10, 2013</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">M.B. moved for a stay of the trial until her competency could be
determined. The trial court denied the
motion and terminated Mother’s parental rights.
Mother now appeals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court of Appeals <b>affirmed
</b>and found that Mother did not have a right to a competency hearing.
Further, putting her competency at issue actually could hurt her case because
incompetence is a ground for termination of parental rights. <i>See </i>U.C.A. §§ 78A-6-507(c) and
78A-6-503(12). Further, based on the
findings made by the trial court Mother was not incompetent. There may not had been a hearing on that
issue, but the trial court made several findings as to competency based on the
psychological evaluation submitted into evidence and Mother’s own testimony.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">: </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_cb036011013.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_cb036011013.pdf</span></a><span style="color: red; font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-9576290639826453942013-08-08T06:33:00.000-07:002013-08-08T06:33:02.752-07:00Unwed Biological Father Cannot Be Held Responsible for Negligence of State Agency.<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">In re: Baby T, R.C.A. v.
A.O.L., </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT 78, Utah Supreme Court, November 23, 2012</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Shaud submitted a paternity action with the State Office of Vital
Statistics 5 days prior to Mother’s relinquishment, however his documents were
not filed by the clerk until 45 minutes after Mother relinquished the child for
adoption. Shaud was found by the trial
court not to have fully complied with Utah law §78B-6-121 because the statute
places on the unwed biological Father the who responsibility and requires him
to be responsible for third parties. and was therefore denied the opportunity
to withhold consent and intervene in the adoption action of Baby Girl T. Shaud appeals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Supreme Court found that the Statute as Applied to Shaud
violates his Constitutional right to Due Process. Because Shaud had no control of the documents
after they were filed the Supreme Court found that his documents should be
deemed filed at the time there were sent to the Office of Vital Statistics
because at that point Shaud had completed with all that he could do to comply
with Utah Code §78B-6-121.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Reversed and Remanded.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Justice Lee dissents arguing that the Due Process argument was not
properly preserved.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">: </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/BabyGirlT1278112312.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/BabyGirlT1278112312.pdf</span></a><span style="color: red; font-family: Courier; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;"> </span><span style="color: red; font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-5695142234817665762013-08-08T06:28:00.000-07:002013-08-08T06:28:55.367-07:00Hold Harmless Provision in Decree = to Absolve Other Party From All Responsibility and Damage on A Debt.<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Gardner v. Gardner, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT
App. 374, Utah Court of Appeals, December 28, 2012</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">In the Original Divorce, Wife was awarded the parties marital home
and was ordered to make the payments on the home and hold Husband harmless in
regards to the debt. Wife failed to make
several payments. Husband filed an Order
to Show Cause and a Petition to Modify.
Husband’s Petition to Modify was denied and Court refused to hold wife
in contempt. Husband Appeals.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The trial court found that Decree’s hold harmless provision only
required her to make the payments and not expect any payment from Husband. The Court of Appeals disagreed and found that
a hold harmless provision implies a much stronger obligation than to just make
payments. It also requires the paying
party to protect the other party from any damage that may result from late
payments. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The trial court also found that Husband’s damages because of his
lower credit score and suspension of credit because of the missed payments were
extremely speculative and he could not prove any real damages. However, Husband
requested attorney fees. Attorney fees
are not speculative in nature and a real number can be placed on that
expense. Further, Husband asks for an
order requiring Wife to refinance the home.
No finding of damages are required to enter an order requiring Wife to
refinance. <b>Reversed and Remanded.<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">: </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/gardner520122812.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/gardner520122812.pdf</span></a><span style="color: red; font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-67285334415527405082013-08-08T06:26:00.000-07:002013-08-08T06:27:34.343-07:00Needs of Recipient Spouse is the Maximum Alimony Award.<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Dobson v. Dobson, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT App.
373, Utah Court of Appeals, December 28, 2012</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">Wife was awarded $800/
month alimony for 20 years as well as physical and legal custody of her two
children.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">Wife argued that the
Court should not have considered child support as income in calculating
alimony. The Court of Appeals found that
is <i>best practice<b> </b></i>to calculate child support and alimony separately. However, combining the calculations <b>is not an abuse of discretion</b>,
particularly when Wife included the children’s expenses in her monthly need on
her financial declaration.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">Wife also argued that
the trial court failed to consider Husband’s increased ability to pay as his
child support obligation decreases. Wife
failed to demonstrate how Husband’s increased ability to pay affects her needs. Because as Wife’s child support will decrease
so should her obligations (i.e. no longer having to pay for the adult child).
There was <b>no abuse in discretion</b> in
the court’s consideration of Wife’s decrease in need. Further, income to wife was correctly imputed
because of Wife’s advanced decree and the testimony of the employability
expert.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court of Appeals <b>Reversed and Remanded</b> the alimony award
to give proper consideration to the standard of living during the
marriage. The trial court reduced wife’s
expenses without adequate explanation and is instructed to supply additional
findings as to why it eliminated some of Wife’s claimed expenses as listed on
her financial declaration. Also <b>remanded </b>to correct the mathematical
error in Father’s income.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">: </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/dobson122812.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/dobson122812.pdf</span></a><span style="color: red; font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;"> </span><u><span style="color: blue; font-size: 8.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-7693057129830961052013-08-08T06:23:00.000-07:002013-08-08T06:23:40.707-07:00Incidents Constituting a Course of Conduct Need Not Occur Within a Certain Time Frame.<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Butters v. Herbert, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT App.
329, Utah Court of Appeals, November 23, 2012</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">Butters sought and
obtained a civil stalking injunction against Herbert and awarded Butters her
attorney fees for the two day trial. Herbert
appealed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">In order to obtain a
stalking injunction, a petitioner must show that respondent engaged in a course
of conduct (two or more incidents) directed at petitioner that respondent knows
or should know would cause a reasonable person fear for their or another’s
safety or emotional distress. Herbert
argues that the incidents in this case are too sporadic and not outrageous
enough. Court of Appeals disagreed and <b>affirmed </b>the trial court.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">The court of Appeals
found that actions in support of a stalking injunction need not occur in any
specific time frame. The Court found that Herbert’s actions of speeding towards
Butters in a grocery store parking lot, followed by him circling her car for
several minutes is a sufficiently outrageous.
That combined with his actions of his approaching of Butters in the mall
parking lot and silently staring at her is also sufficiently outrageous. Those two actions alone are sufficient for
the entry of a stalking injunction.
Particularly when coupled with the two incidents at the gym, one which
he circled her car on foot, followed her inside the continued to stare at her.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">This combination of
incidents could cause a reasonable person to fear for his/her safety.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">: </span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/butters112312.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/butters112312.pdf</span></a></span>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-2229696587117752082013-08-08T06:21:00.000-07:002013-08-08T06:21:54.765-07:00Limiting Healthcare to Homeopathic Remedies Against the Other Parent’s Wishes = Sole Custody to Other Parent.<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Clarke v. Clarke, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT
App. 328, Utah Court of Appeals, November 23, 2012</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">At trial, Mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of
the parties minor children, was awarded 100% equity in the marital home, and
husband was found in contempt. Father
appealed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">Father asserted that he was the primary caregiver and that the Court
did not give proper weight to Mother’s conviction for custodial interference. However, the Court of Appeals <b>affirmed</b> the trial court’s award of
custody finding that Father’s antipathy to scientific medicines and his refusal
to have the children immunized caused the court concern for the safety and
health of the children. Further, the
Court made no finding as to which parent was the primary caregiver. Parents worked opposite schedules and cared
for the children while the other was at work.
Father could not show that the trial court abused its discretion in
awarding Mother sole custody.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">Court awarded Mother all
the equity in the marital home to reimburse her for the inheritance she
received and used to pay of Father’s premarital debt which Father agreed he
should repay. The Court <b>affirmed the award </b>and<b> </b>found that Mother should not lose the
benefit of her inheritance simply because it was inverted into Father’s debt.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court found that
there was adequate grounds for the finding of contempt, however, the Court <b>reversed and remanded</b> the calculation
of attorney fees to be limited only to the fees accrued for the contempt
hearing and not amounts accrued prior to contemptuous conduct.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">: </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/clarke112312.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/clarke112312.pdf</span></a><span style="color: red; font-family: Courier; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Courier;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-73988192242990594432013-08-08T06:19:00.000-07:002013-08-08T06:19:49.468-07:00Default Divorce Decree ≠ Adjudication of Paternity and If Set Aside Also Sets Aside Paternity Finding<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Reller v. Reller,
Intervenor Argenziano, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT App 323, Utah Court
of Appeals, November 16, 2012</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Argenziano fathered Wife’s child.
Wife divorced Husband by default decree in which Wife alleged that
Husband was the father. Nine months
after the default decree was entered, Husband filed a Petition to Modify. Wife responded, and for the first time
alleged that Husband was not the father of the minor child. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The parties stipulated to set aside the Decree in regards to the
minor child and Wife moved to join Argenziano.
Argenziano intervened and moved to dismiss the order setting aside
alleging that Husband had already been <i>adjudicated</i></span>
as the father. The Court denied the
motion and ordered Argenziano to undergo genetic testing. Argenziano was shown to be the, Father. Argenziano appealed arguing that because
Husband had already been <i>adjudicated</i>
Father, the parties could not now challenge the <i>adjudication. See </i>U.C.A. §78B-15-607(1)(a). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
The Court of Appeals <b>affirmed</b> the trial court decision and agreed that a default decree
once set aside is not an adjudication.
They further found that because Argenziano was not a party in the
Divorce , he has no standing to challenge the setting aside of the Decree
because he was not a party to the action.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Affirmed.</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">: </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/reller111612.pdf"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/reller111612.pdf</span></a><span class="MsoHyperlink"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-27899605276951147162013-08-08T06:16:00.001-07:002013-08-08T06:16:58.430-07:00UCCJEA: Presence of the Child is the Only Requirement for Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction and Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction Can Ripen into Full Jurisdiction.<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "PalatinoLinotype-Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: PalatinoLinotype-Roman;">In
re: Z.Z. et al; K.Z. and V.Z. v. State of Utah</span><b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT
App 317, Utah Court of Appeals, November 8, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">DCFS filed a Petition for Custody, Mother and Father fled with the
children. The Juvenile Court closed the
case neither the children nor their parents resided in Utah.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Later the children were left in Utah with family. However, neither Mother nor Father picked up
the children on the designated date and another Petition was filed. On the morning of the trial, Father’s motion
to continue was denied and Mother and Father had their parental rights
terminated.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Parents’ motions for new trials were denied. Parents appealed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Parents argued that the Utah Court did not have jurisdiction because
Utah was not the home state of the children and had lost. The Court of Appeals disagreed; they found
that the parents’ abandonment of the children gave the Utah Court temporary
emergency. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court further found Colorado did not have jurisdiction over
the minor children because, they had insufficient evidence to conclude that the
children had resided in Colorado for the requisite 6 months.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Lastly, there is no absolute right to be present at the
termination trial. No due process was
violated when the Motion to Continue was denied.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Affirmed.</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">: </span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_zz110812.pdf"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt; line-height: 115%;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_zz110812.pdf</span></a></span>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-8806817978354481992013-08-08T06:12:00.000-07:002013-08-08T06:12:50.964-07:00Due Process = Notice + Opportunity to be Heard and Unconscionable = Shock the Conscience<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Hartle v. Hartle, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT
App. 312, Utah Court of Appeals, November 1, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Husband moved to set aside an order which was entered based on a stipulation of the
parties. Husband failed to marshal the
evidence in support of his claim that the parties did not have a meeting of the
minds. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Husband argued next that he did not receive due process on his
Motion to Set Aside. The Court of
Appeals disagreed. The trial court found
that the Court’s hearing as to the enforceability of the agreement was
sufficient due process because it provided Notice and Opportunity to be Heard.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Lastly, Husband argued that the agreement was unconscionable. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court of Appeals found that the agreement
did not <b>shock the conscience</b>. If fact, Wife's agreement to trade away alimony for return of her contribution in investment property was a reasonable trade.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Affirmed.</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt;">: </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/hartle110112.pdf"><span style="font-size: 8.0pt;">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/hartle110112.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-61964442264984535462013-03-26T11:26:00.002-07:002013-03-26T11:28:16.512-07:00Joint Physical Custody Has Two Requirements: 1) More than 30% Overnights and 2) Contribution to the Expenses of the Child in Addition to Paying Child Support.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Spall-Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT 302,
Utah Court of Appeals, October 25, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Parties were divorced and Wife was awarded primary physical
custody and the parties were awarded joint-physical custody of the minor
child. Wife was also awarded child
support based on the sole custody child support worksheet. Husband, who was awarded more than 30% of
overnights appealed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court of Appeals found that Husband did have more than 30% of
the overnights, however, joint-physical custody requires more than 30% of
overnights, but also requires that both parents contribute to the expenses for
the child in addition to paying child support.
<i>See</i> <a href="http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE78B/htm/78B12_010200.htm">U.C.A.
§78B-12-102(14)</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Affirmed.<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">: <a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/goldsmith102512.pdf">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/goldsmith102512.pdf</a></span>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-79610420474396731192013-03-26T11:25:00.001-07:002013-03-26T11:28:14.801-07:00Separate Property Can Become Marital Property Simply if the Other Spouse’s Contribution of Income to the Marriage<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Henshaw v. Henshaw, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">2012 UT App. 56, Utah Court
of Appeals, February 24, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Husband and Wife were divorced.
Wife was awarded half of the equity in a ranch and adjoining property
that Husband inherited and paid for with inherited money. In the time leading up to trial, Husband went
through 3 attorneys and file a motion to recuse the judge in order to extend
the time until trial. The trial court
found that he violated rule 11. Husband
appealed the property distribution and the Rule 11 findings.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The Court of Appeals declined to disturb the trial court’s finding
that Wife contributed to the maintenance of the ranch and that Wife’s parents
loaned the parties money to cover their needs and allow them to purchase the
additional land and maintain the ranch.
As to the classification of the adjoining property as marital property,
Husband failed to properly marshal the evidence and as such, the Court refused
to overturn the trial court’s decision.
Further, because of Wife’s contribution of income and contributions to
the ranch, it was not an abuse of discretion to award her 50% of the value of
the premarital property. However, the
Court found that the Ranch could not be ordered sold because it was already
sold. The Court affirmed the trial court’s
division of the value and remanded the issue to determine Wife’s remedy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Further, Husband’s actions of attempting to delay the proceedings
properly resulted in Rule 11 Sanctions.</span><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">: <a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/henshaw022412.pdf">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/henshaw022412.pdf</a>
</span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-76202005062499250882013-03-25T11:18:00.004-07:002013-03-25T11:18:51.099-07:00Stalking Injunction: Statements About a Petitioner that Cause Reasonable Fear Are a Basis for a Stalking Injunction.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Sloane v. Brown, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT 300,
Utah Court of Appeals, October 25, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Sloane sought and obtained an ex parte stalking injunction against
Brown. Brown requested a hearing. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">At the hearing, the Court heard opening statements and requested
that the parties stipulate to the Court considering the opening statements a
proffer of the parties testimony. The
parties agreed. Part of Sloane’s was a
proffer of statements made about Sloane on Brown’s blog. The Blog contained Brown’s summary of events
including her desire to kill Sloane’s dog and her attempts to get Sloane evicted. The Court found that Sloane had sufficiently
demonstrated Brown’s course of conduct directed at her that would cause a
reasonable person to fear. Brown Appealed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Brown argued that the Court should not have accepted the proffer
as testimony. The Court of Appeals found
that the Court’s action was not plain error; and if there was any error by the
trial court, it was invited error because Brown agreed with the court’s
consideration of the proffer. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Brown also argued that her blog posts were protected speech and
were not directed at Sloane. The Court
of Appeals found that Brown failed to submit any law that supported her
position. Finally, the law does not
require that the threatening statements be made to the petitioner, but also
allows for threatening statements made <i>about</i>
an individual can also be a basis for the entry of a stalking injunction. <b>Affirmed.</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">: </span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/slone102512.pdf">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/slone102512.pdf</a>
</span>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-67811643275917588572013-03-25T11:18:00.001-07:002013-03-25T11:18:06.215-07:00Court Can Base It’s Rulings on Hypotheticals; and Animal Feed is Not Included in Child Support or Alimony<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">2012 UT App. 282, Utah
Court of Appeals, October 12, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Husband and Wife were divorced.
Wife was awarded alimony based on a standard of living that would
include a hypothetical $140,000 home.
The Court also awarded $200/month for the cost of animal feed for a
minor daughter’s horses. Husband
appealed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The Court of Appeals found that the relying on the $140,000 home
was reasonable without any evidence to support such a number. The court also found that the $200 for the
animal costs appeared to be more related to the child’s extracurricular
activity than to Wife’s standard of living.
Because it was an extracurricular expense, the Court of Appeals amended
the award to deduct the cost of the animal feed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">The Court was divided on the both issues with a dissenting opinion
on each. Judge Orme dissented on the
alimony award and asserted that the trial court should not have awarded alimony
based on a hypothetical home. Jude Orme
accused the trial court of punishing husband for his fault for artificially
lowering the parties living conditions during the marriage; and since fault
cannot be used as a factor (keep in mind the </span><a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillamd/HB0338.pdf"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">new changes to U.C.A. §30-3-5</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">, passed by legislature,
not yet signed by Governor). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif;">Judge Thorne believed that the $200 for the feed should have been
included in the alimony award because Wife’s standard of living had always
included horses. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">: </span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/farnsworth10122012.pdf">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/farnsworth10122012.pdf</a>
</span>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-62205714377179456142013-03-15T10:57:00.000-07:002013-03-15T10:57:22.546-07:00Cryopreservation of Semen Does Not Make the Donor a Parent.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Burns v. Burns, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT
71, Utah Supreme Court, October 12, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Husband was diagnosed with cancer and preserved his semen prior to
chemotherapy. Husband died and Wife used
the sperm for artificial insemination.
Wife gave birth and applied for social security benefits for the child
and listed deceased-husband as the father.
Social security denied Mother’s claims.
Mother requested that the Federal District Court review the administrative
to the federal district court. The
Federal Court sent the question of law to the Utah Supreme Court to determine
if the donor could be a Father under Utah law.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Supreme Court found that in order to be a parent of a child who
resulted from cryopreserved semen or embryo, the donor must agree in a record and
consent to be considered the parent of said -child. (<i>See
U.C.A. 78B-15-707). </i>Husband never signed an agreement consenting to being
the parent of a child conceived posthumously and as such is not considered a
parent. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">: </span><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Burns1271101212.pdf">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Burns1271101212.pdf</a></span>Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-22502342275137086882013-03-15T10:55:00.001-07:002013-03-15T10:55:58.281-07:00Order to Show Cause: Burden is on Moving Party <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Black v. Black, </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT
App. 259, Utah Court of Appeals, September 20, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Husband and Wife came to an agreement as to ongoing disbursements
from a film company. Husband was to
prepare an accounting of each disbursement along with a portion of the payment
to wife. Wife was dissatisfied with the
accounting and filed an order to show cause against Husband. The Commissioner did not hold Husband in
contempt and found based on the evidence presented that Husband was in
substantial compliance. Wife objected to
the recommendation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Judge received oral argument overruled the objection (affirmed
the commissioner’s ruling) and awarded Husband $500 in attorney fees. Wife appealed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court of Appeals found that it was Wife’s burden to show that
Husband knew of the order, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply; and
she must do so by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the Court found that Husband
was in substantial compliance. Wife
asserted that the trial court should have placed the burden on Husband to show
that he was in compliance. The Court of
Appeals disagreed with Wife and found that the burden shifts only in instances
when a party argues inability to comply, which is essentially an affirmative
defense. In this case, Husband did not
argue that he was unable to comply; instead, Husband’s argument was that he was
in compliance. The Court of Appeals
agreed with Husband.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">: </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/black59709202012.pdf"><span style="background: white; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/black59709202012.pdf</span></a><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6688780291297322467.post-82589514311572778812013-03-08T10:26:00.002-08:002013-03-08T10:27:23.078-08:00Child Welfare: Strict Due Process Not Required and Court’s Failure to Allow Withdrawal of Admissions is Harmless Error<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><i><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">In Re: A.K. (H.K. v. State
of Utah), </span></i></b><span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2012 UT App. 232, Utah Court of Appeals, August 16, 2012<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Mother and children were under Juvenile Court jurisdiction. Mother failed to comply with the reunification
plan and attempted to flee with the children.
The children were removed from Mother.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The State petitioned to terminate mother’s rights. The State sought discovery from mother in the
form of 206 Requests for Admissions.
Mother gave a blanket denial on the last possible day and later admitted
to 126 of the requests. The trial court
found mother’s blanket denial ineffective and deemed all 206 admitted, granted
the state summary judgment as to unfitness and held a trial as to best
interests. The trial concluded in the
termination of mother’s parental rights.
Mother appealed the trial court’s action of deeming the requests
admitted, and the trial court’s failure to hold a shelter hearing after the
final removal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court of Appeals found the right to due process (i.e. the request
for a shelter hearing) was not violated by the lack of a shelter hearing because
mother admitted to sufficient grounds for the removal. Even if the shelter hearing was required and
was held the result would have been held, the result would be the same.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">The Court of Appeals also found that the trial court’s alleged
misconduct as to the Request for Admissions could be no more than harmless
error. This is because Mother admitted to 126 of the requests and the remaining
requests were proven by testimony.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Lastly as to mother’s criticism of the Court of Appeals manner of
handling juvenile court matters (i.e. awarding special deference to conclusions
of the juvenile court), the Court of Appeals again rejects any need for de novo
review of child welfare cases.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f6f6f6; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">Full opinion available at</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 7.5pt; line-height: 115%;">: </span><span style="background: white; color: #222222; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 9.5pt; line-height: 115%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><a href="http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_ak081612.pdf">http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/JV_ak081612.pdf</a>
<o:p></o:p></div>
Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15320779737641764731noreply@blogger.com0