Cantrell v. Cantrell
323 P.3d 586
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Parties divorced by stipulation (Collaborative Law) in 2008 after 22-year marriage; decree incorporated the Stipulation. They have three minor children (two daughters, one son).
- Stipulation/Decree awarded Wife the marital home (Wife to attempt refinance to remove Husband as debtor) and gave Husband primary custody of son, Wife primary custody of daughters.
- Parties stipulated to an upward deviation from statutory child support: Husband obligated to pay $8,000/month for the daughters (guideline amount was $5,232), but the Stipulation/Decree contained no explanation for the deviation.
- Wife relocated to New York in August 2008 and later sold the marital home. Husband petitioned to modify the Decree to eliminate the upward deviation, asserting the deviation was intended to keep the marital home for the children and that the relocation/sale defeated that purpose.
- The district court found the Decree ambiguous for lack of an explanation for the upward deviation, received parol evidence of the parties’ intent, found Husband’s testimony credible that the deviation funded home maintenance, concluded Wife’s move/sale was a substantial change, and reduced child support to the guideline amount.
- On appeal, Wife challenged (1) the district court’s view that the statute required an explanation for an agreed upward deviation and that the Decree was ambiguous, and (2) the sufficiency of findings under the statutory modification standard.
Issues
| Issue | Cantrell (Wife) Argument | Cantrell (Husband) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute required an explanation in the decree for an agreed upward deviation, and whether absence created ambiguity permitting parol evidence | Decree complied; no statutory explanation required for an upward, stipulated deviation; absence does not render decree ambiguous | Decree ambiguous for lack of explanation; parol evidence admissible to show reason for deviation | Court held no statutory requirement for an explanation when parties stipulate to an upward deviation; absence of explanation does not make decree ambiguous |
| Whether the district court properly considered parol evidence to determine parties’ intent behind the deviation | Parol evidence improperly used because decree unambiguous as to obligation; intent irrelevant to meaning of decree | Parol evidence appropriate because ambiguity existed due to missing explanation | Court held decree unambiguous on its face; parol evidence was not the proper basis for modification analysis |
| Whether Wife’s relocation/sale of home constituted a substantial change not contemplated in the decree supporting modification under Utah Code § 78B-12-210(9) | District court failed to evaluate whether the change was contemplated by the decree or whether modification was in children’s best interests; remand required | Husband argued relocation/sale defeated purpose of deviation and thus was a substantial, unanticipated change justifying modification | Court found record supports that move/sale was a substantial change but remanded because district court failed to make required findings on whether the change was contemplated and whether modification is in children’s best interests |
| Whether district court’s findings were adequate to support modification | Findings inadequate because court bypassed statutory § 78B-12-210(9) analysis and did not make required findings on contemplation/best interests | District court relied on credibility finding and evidence about home maintenance costs | Court reversed and remanded: district court erred by not applying the statutory modification framework and by failing to make necessary findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Doyle, 221 P.3d 888 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review and that interpretation of divorce decree is a question of law)
- Davis v. Davis, 263 P.3d 520 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (parties may stipulate to upward deviation without trial court making specific findings)
- Glenn v. Reese, 225 P.3d 185 (Utah 2009) (contractual ambiguity standard)
- Moon v. Moon, 973 P.2d 431 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (divorce decree interpretation follows contract rules)
- Diener v. Diener, 98 P.3d 1178 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (requirement that trial court make findings on material issues in modification proceedings)
- Wall v. Wall, 157 P.3d 341 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (change not contemplated when decree and record lack reference to changed circumstance)
- Gullickson v. Gullickson, 301 P.3d 1011 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (modification requires substantial change not contemplated in decree)
- Durfee v. Durfee, 796 P.2d 713 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (evidence needed to show a changed circumstance was contemplated by decree)
- Holladay Towne Ctr., LLC v. Brown Family Holdings, LC, 248 P.3d 452 (Utah 2011) (appellate fee award requires a fee award below and success on appeal)