Chaparro v. Torero
2018 UT App 181
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Parents divorced in 2014 with joint legal and physical custody of minor child A.T.; Mother later filed to modify custody.
- The court ordered a custody evaluation with cost split equally; Father paid his half, Mother did not pay her share and offered installment payments.
- Father sought sanctions and amended his pleadings to request sole custody; the district court continued the case but ordered Mother to pay immediately and warned custody could be a sanction.
- After a phone conference in which Mother (pro se) said she could not immediately pay, the court struck Mother’s petition and entered default judgment awarding Father sole legal and physical custody and attorney fees; the court did not take evidence before modifying custody.
- The court issued findings of fact and conclusions drafted by Father’s counsel asserting a material change of circumstances and best interests findings, but the record shows no evidentiary basis for those findings.
- Mother appealed; the appellate court treated the appeal as interlocutory due to the child-custody implications and reviewed whether the district court lawfully imposed custody as a sanction and whether fee findings were adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Chaparro’s Argument | Torero’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred allowing Father to amend pleadings late | Amendment prejudiced Mother and undermined preparation | Amendment was permissible; trial was continued so amendment wasn’t untimely | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in allowing amendment under Rule 15 given continuance |
| Whether awarding sole custody to Father as sanction was lawful | Modification was imposed without evidence or Hogge two-step findings; unlawful | Father argued sanctions justified by Mother’s nonpayment and evaluator’s adverse view | Reversed: court abused discretion; custody cannot be changed as sanction without evidence and findings of material change and best interests (Hogge test) |
| Whether court properly struck Mother’s petition/defaulted her | Strike was punitive and unsupported by findings of willfulness or ability to pay | Strike was appropriate sanction for noncompliance with court order | Vacated sanctions because court failed to identify authority or make required factual findings (e.g., willfulness, ability to pay) |
| Whether attorney-fee award was supported | Court failed to make findings required under §30-3-3 regarding need, ability to pay, reasonableness | Fees were awarded as costs/sanctions; Father sought fees and court awarded them | Vacated fee award for lack of identified legal basis and required findings; remand for proper motion and findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hogge v. Hogge, 649 P.2d 51 (Utah 1982) (establishes two-step test for custody modification: material change and child’s best interests)
- Wright v. Wright, 941 P.2d 646 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (court may impose discovery sanctions but may not transfer custody by default without taking evidence and making Hogge findings)
- Becker v. Becker, 694 P.2d 608 (Utah 1984) (public policy favors stability of custody orders; changes require strong justification)
- ProMax Dev. Corp. v. Raile, 998 P.2d 254 (Utah 2000) (finality and appealability principles requiring attorney-fee determinations before an appeal as of right)