PKPA Applies in Adoption Cases and Must Preserve Grounds for Appeal at Trial Level

In Re Baby E.Z., 2011 UT 38 (Utah Supreme Court, July 19, 2011)
Mother moved to Utah while pregnant and placed the baby for adoption. Father moved to intervene in the adoption matter, but his intervention was denied. Father Appealed.
Because an adoption proceeding requires a custody determination the PKPA applies. However, Father failed to raise PKPA at the trial court level. Because PKPA is not a jurisdictional issue, he cannot raise it for the first time on appeal. Because he failed to raise PKPA at the trial level, his claim is waived.
Father also raised a due process challenge to the requirement of paternal assertion prior to a mother’s relinquishment. However, Father failed to raise this at the trial level.
In short, because Father failed to preserve his grounds for appeal, both grounds were waived and not fully reviewed by the Court. Affirmed.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/InReEZ071911.pdf

Property Not Properly Conveyed Away from the Marital Estate is Marital Property; and Fraud Tolls Statute of Limitations on Quiet Title Actions

Grgich v. Grgich, 2011 UT App 214 (Utah Court of Appeals, June 30, 2011)

Husband and Wife divorced. Wife was awarded 1/2 interest in the parties farm estate where the parties had lived for the majority of the marriage.  Husband appealed claiming the property was deeded to the minor children and Wife's challenge of the deed was barred by the statute of limitations.  The trial court had concluded that Husband's acts of mortgaging the land without permission and over the objection of the children showed his lack of present intent to transfer when he deeded it to his children.  Because he lacked the present intent to transfer, the transfer to the children was invalid.  Further, the trial court found even he had the intent to transfer the property his fraud on Wife tolled the statute of limitations as to Wife because Husband himself had told Wife that it was invalid.  She relied on his statement and his actions of unilaterally mortgaging the property as proof that he was the one true owner.

The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/grgich063011.pdf

Stalking Injunctions: Fear Can the the Result of Cumulative Actions

Coombs v. Dietrich, 2011 UT App 136 (Utah Court of Appeals, April 28, 2011)

Coombs sought a stalking injunction against Dietrich (his ex-wife's new boyfriend) based on three incidents.  In the first and second incidents, Dietrich merely called Coombs names and attempted to intimidate him.  The third incident culminated in Dietrich slamming Coombs against the car and shutting his arm in the car door.  The Court granted the stalking injunction.  Dietrich appealed.  

Dietrich argued that the first two incidents would not have caused a reasonable person to fear, and the third action alone is insufficient for the entry of a stalking injunction.  The Court of appeals found that the first two incidents coupled with the third was sufficient for the entry of the stalking injunction.  The independent incidents do not need to be fear inducing to warrant a Stalking injunction, but if the cumulative effect of the incidents causes fear that is sufficient. Affirmed

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/coombs042811.pdf

No Constitutional Right to Counsel in Civil Contempt Cases

Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. ____ (2011).

Turner had been found in contempt five times for failure to pay child support.  The fifth time Turner did not pay the amount owing and served 6 months.  After his release, the court issued another order to show cause and sentenced him to 12 months in jail without making a finding as to Turner's ability to pay.  He appealed.

Turner argued that he should have been provided counsel at the show cause hearing because there was a chance that he would be subject to incarceration.

The Supreme Court found that due process requirements are met and punishment can be imposed if the alleged contemnor is found to have had notice of the order, ability to comply with the order and willful noncompliance with the order.  No further safeguards are required, and if those safeguards are preserved the Court may impose jail time.

Full Decision available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8203402461706269179&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Property Division is to be Equitable not Equal and Alimony Must have a Conclusion

Boyer v. Boyer, 2011 UT App 141 (Utah Court of Appeals, May 5, 2011)

Husband and Wife divorced.  Husband was awarded his retirement and the business.  He was further awarded a majority of the debt and was ordered to pay alimony.  Wife appealed the property division claiming she should be awarded a portion of the business and Husband’s retirement.  She also appealed the alimony award arguing that the Court failed to consider husband’s fault, (Husband had given wife a STD) and wife’s health.  Wife also appealed the Court’s prospective downward adjustments to alimony.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the property division, finding that while not equal as to the individual parts was equitable when evaluating the entire award.  As to alimony, The Court of Appeals found that there was no need to analyze Wife’s health, because that is not one of the statutory factors.  The Court did not have to analyze fault because it is an optional factor (“Court may consider fault”).  However, the Court remanded the award for further findings as to the prospective downward adjustments (which the Court of Appeals found would be appropriate and consistent with rehabilitative alimony, the trial simply needed to categorize the alimony award).  The Court of Appeals further remanded for findings as to the date of conclusion of alimony. 

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/boyer050511.pdf

Passage of Time Itself is not Enough to Invalidate a Divorce Agreement and Post Separation Mortgage Payments Entitle Payor to More Equity

Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 2011 UT App 161 (Utah Court of Appeals, May 19, 2011).

Parties signed a “divorce agreement” in May 2001 and filed for divorce until 2005. The Trial court upheld the agreement. The trial court also awarded Husband a disproportionate portion of the equity because of his use of inheritance and separate income to retire the mortgage after separation. Wife Appealed.

The Court of Appeals found that Wife had marshaled much of the evidence, but failed to illustrate the “fatal flaw.” It is not enough to merely present all the evidence; the appellant must demonstrate why the evidence is insufficient. The Court also found that the passage of time does not invalidate the agreement.

The Court of appeals further found husband’s payments from post separation income and separate property used to retire the mortgage entitled him to a disproportionate amount of equity.

Wife appealed on several other grounds, but failed to preserve some issues and her other arguments were simply not supported by the evidence.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/jacobsen051911.pdf

UIFSA Grants Jurisdiction to Enforce Not to Modify

Osborne v. Osborne, 2011 UT App 150 (Utah Court of Appeals, May 12, 2011)

Osbornes divorced in Arkansas.  Mrs. Osborne moved to Utah and had her Decree domesticated under UFISA and filed for the entry of a QDRO and back alimony.  She was granted the QDRO and back alimony.  Mr. appealed arguing that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals found that UIFSA does not give Utah courts the power to modify the Decree, but does allow for enforcement thereof.  The filing of the QDRO and ordering of back support are enforcement issues.  The case must be transferred in order for a decree to be modified.  Also, the Court did not err in finding that Mr. owed the back alimony payments.  (Mrs. Was to be paid alimony until she began to receive her distribution of the railroad retirement benefits).

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/appopin/osborne051211.pdf