Contempt: Must Show Direct Harm to Appeal a Finding of Noncontempt of an Opposing Party

Summer v. Summer, 2012 UT App. 159, Utah Court of Appeals, June 1, 2012

Wife obtained a Temporary Order that required Husband to pay her health insurance. Husband failed to pay for the insurance.  The insurance cancelled her coverage. Husband was found in contempt. 

Husband and Wife agreed Husband reinstate the insurance.  Husband failed to do so and was found in contempt again, he was ordered him to serve the original 30 days for each contempt.  The parties also agreed that they would “look into filing a bankruptcy.”  Husband filed bankruptcy. Wife did not.

Husband appealed both the trial court’s failure to hold Wife in contempt for her failure to file bankruptcy.

The Court evaluated first whether a party has standing to appeal a failure of a court hold a person in contempt.  The Court determined in this case that because Wife’s failure to file bankruptcy resulted in a disproportionate property and alimony award, Husband did have standing because a finding of contempt on that issue could have decreased his alimony obligation and could have resulted in a more equitable property distribution.  However, because the agreement was only to “look into” filing bankruptcy, there was no requirement for wife to file bankruptcy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding of noncotnempt.

  

Full opinion available at:  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/summer060112.pdf

Divorce: Judicial Statements Without findings Cannot be the “Law of the Case;” and Court Cannot Disregard Admissions

Kotter v. Kotter, 2009 UT App. 60, ---P.3d---, (Utah Court of Appeals, March 5, 2009).

Bart Kotter was ordered to pay Elizabeth Vienna (Kotter) alimony and $800,000 for half of the value of the parties’ business. A previous judge conducted a judge-led arbitration off-the-record in which he considered only the final award of the parties’ business. The judge awarded the business to Husband and indicated that half the value should be awarded to Wife, along with alimony. The judge ruled that based on the previous judge’s statements as to alimony and the cost of the business, to be law of the case, in spite of the lack of findings. He also dismissed Husband’s motion for summary judgment which was based on Wife’s failure to respond to Request for Admissions. Husband appealed to the Utah State Court of Appeals. 

The Court Reversed and Remanded the case and found that because the previous judge did not make the requisite findings to support alimony or the business valuation. So, there was no “law of the case.” As such, the Court reversed both rulings.

The Court also found that the issues of alimony and business valuation were settled because Wife failed to respond to a Request for Admissions. Wife conceded that she had not responded; and, neither she nor her counsel ever requested that the admissions be amended. Therefore, they were deemed admitted, and the Court instructed the lower court to enter summary judgment.


The more important point is that even without the admission, Wife failed to provide her monthly accounting and provided no evidence as to her income.  Without evidence on her monthly income and expenses the Court could not make any award of alimony.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/kotter030509.pdf