Bell v. Bell
2013 UT App 248
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- John and Stephanie Bell divorced after a long marriage; they have five adult children and two minors, including C.E.B., who has cerebral palsy and significant care needs, and N.B.
- Trial court awarded Wife sole physical custody, joint legal custody, imputed income to both parties (Husband $6,412.76/mo; Wife $1,260/mo), set child support, and ordered alimony of $1,800/mo to Wife.
- Court awarded marital home (equity ~$94,000) to Wife, awarded Husband ~$119,000 from retirement accounts, and gave Wife her share of Husband’s pension (Woodward credit).
- Trial court found Wife in contempt for interfering with a GAL‑selected therapist and sentenced her to five days in jail (stayed).
- Wife appealed pro se; this opinion affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further findings on several financial and custody issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint legal custody could be awarded absent a filed parenting plan | Joint legal custody improper because no parenting plan was filed | Agreed (both parties conceded no parenting plan) | Reversed: joint legal custody unlawful without one or both parents filing a parenting plan; remand for custody reconsideration |
| Whether court properly imputed $1,260/mo income to Wife for child support | Imputation unsupported by evidence and failed to consider Wife’s caregiving burden for C.E.B. | Wife failed to marshal evidence on appeal (argued imputation appropriate) | Reversed and remanded: findings insufficient to support imputation; trial court must articulate reasoning and subsidiary facts |
| Whether marital property division was properly supported and equitable | Division unequally favored Husband (retirement) vs Wife (home equity) without adequate findings or values for awarded items | Husband conceded some issues; court relied on stipulated home value but provided no allocation reasoning | Reversed and remanded: trial court failed to assign values or explain exceptional circumstances for unequal division; more detailed findings required |
| Whether attorney fees awarded ($4,000) were adequate and supported | Wife argued she is impecunious and needs full recovery of fees; court failed to make findings on need and ability to pay | Husband conceded error re: findings | Reversed and remanded: award lacks explicit findings on Wife’s need, Husband’s ability to pay, and reasonableness of fees; trial court must revisit |
Key Cases Cited
- Trubetzkoy v. Trubetzkoy, 205 P.3d 891 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (joint legal custody requires a parenting plan filed by one or both parents)
- Stonehocker v. Stonehocker, 176 P.3d 476 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (framework for identifying, valuing, and distributing marital property and for explaining unequal division)
- Gardner v. Gardner, 748 P.2d 1076 (Utah 1988) (trial court must make findings sufficient to show how ultimate conclusions were reached)
- Kiesel v. Kiesel, 619 P.2d 1374 (Utah 1980) (support may continue beyond majority where child is incapacitated and cannot earn a living)
- Leppert v. Leppert, 200 P.3d 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (attorney‑fee awards in divorce require findings on recipient’s need, payer’s ability, and fee reasonableness)
- Oneida/SLIC v. Oneida Cold Storage & Warehouse, Inc., 872 P.2d 1051 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (appellate marshaling rule: appellant must present record evidence opposing a trial finding)