Barrani v. Barrani
2014 UT App 204
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- 2014 Utah Court of Appeals memorandum decision affirms custody and child support but remands for alimony recalculation.
- Danielle Barrani (Wife) and Kadri O. Barrani (Husband) are parents of two minor children with special needs.
- Trial court kept Wife with primary physical custody and Husband with Wednesday overnight and alternating weekends; rejected a 2-2-3 custody schedule.
- Custody evaluator recommended the 2-2-3 schedule; court relied on Wife’s testimony that the schedule would be disruptive and affect routine and activities.
- Court rejected Husband’s claim that he could provide additional care consistent with joint custody while maintaining employment.
- On alimony, court awarded Wife $1,892 per month for eleven years and remanded to address calculation errors; child support set at $1,238 per month.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody: whether 2-2-3 schedule should be adopted | Barrani argues evaluator recommended 2-2-3; court abused discretion by rejecting. | Barrani contends trial court properly found 2-2-3 disruptive and not in children’s best interests. | No abuse of discretion; court affirmed custody decision keeping existing schedule. |
| Weight of expert testimony in custody | Husband claims court ignored custodian evaluator’s recommendation. | Wife argues credibility and domestic evidence supported rejecting the recommendation. | Court may reject expert testimony with valid reasoning; no reversal of custody weight. |
| Job feasibility and custody | Husband contends he could take more custody without harming employment. | Wife contends sustained, long-term flexibility is not shown and would affect work. | Court reasonably found no feasible long-term plan sustaining greater custody while working. |
| Alimony calculation accuracy | Husband argues trial court erred in income/expense calculations and should use different figures. | Wife contends court properly calculated based on history and evidence; depreciation excluded per statute. | Remanded for reassessment of alimony to fix apparent calculation errors and ensure payor’s ability to pay vs. recipient’s needs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodward v. LaFranca, 305 P.3d 181 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (trial court’s custody decision not to be upset absent abuse of discretion)
- Bingham v. Bingham, 872 P.2d 1065 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (trial court has broad discretion to determine deductibility of business expenses)
- Jensen v. Bowcut, 892 P.2d 1053 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (application of deduction rules for business expenses within trial court discretion)
- Reinhart v. Reinhart, 963 P.2d 757 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (necessity of expenses to operate a business for child-support calculations)
- In re G.Y., 962 P.2d 78 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (trial court may accept or reject expert opinion; credibility respect)
- Jones v. Jones, 700 P.2d 1072 (Utah 1985) (alimony framework balancing needs and ability to pay)
- Kidd v. Kidd, 321 P.3d 200 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (detailed requirements for sufficient findings supporting alimony orders)