Clarke v. Clarke
2012 UT App 328
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Arrangement of a high-conflict divorce between Joshua and Cassie Clarke; district court awarded Wife sole legal and physical custody citing health/safety concerns and ability to decide medical care; court divided assets, awarding Wife 100% of marital home equity, while reimbursing her with Husband’s share for nonmarital funds; Husband was found in contempt for failing to return a child and later sought continuances and to reconsider the property award; court denied further continuances and limited reconsideration of the amount Wife paid toward Husband’s premarital debts; on contempt, attorney fees were awarded to Wife but remanded for recalculation to exclude hours outside the contempt period; final appellate decision affirms custody and overall disposition, but remands for recalculation of attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody best interests standard applied | Clarke contends the court undervalued his role as primary caregiver and overemphasized health/safety concerns. | Clarke argues the court failed to weigh statutory factors properly and to give proper weight to Wife’s conduct. | Affirmed: custody award within discretion and supported by best-interest analysis. |
| Division of marital assets and home equity | Clarke argues home equity should be divided equally minus a $32,000 offset for Wife’s nonmarital funds. | Court appropriately reimbursed Wife for nonmarital funds using Husband’s share of home equity. | Affirmed: district court acted within discretion; Wife received full equity to reimburse nonmarital funds. |
| Motion to continue trial and custody evaluation timing | Husband sought another continuance to complete a custody evaluation. | Court exercised discretion, noting prior continuances and late custody-evaluator engagement. | Affirmed: denial of continuance not an abuse of discretion. |
| Contempt finding and attorney fees | Husband challenges contempt findings and argues fees include hours outside the contempt period. | Court properly held in contempt for September 6–10 conduct and Fees were for contempt-related work. | Affirmed in part; remanded to recalculate attorney fees to conform to contempt scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Davis, 749 P.2d 647 (Utah 1988) (abuse-of-discretion standard for custody awards within statute framework)
- Tucker v. Tucker, 910 P.2d 1209 (Utah 1996) (trial court discretion in weighing custody factors)
- Rice v. Rice, 564 P.2d 305 (Utah 1977) (best interests central in custody determinations)
- Mortensen v. Mortensen, 760 P.2d 304 (Utah 1988) (separate-property reimbursement in property division)
- Sinclair v. Sinclair, 718 P.2d 396 (Utah 1986) (no fixed formula for debts; fair and equitable division guidance)
- Hill v. Dickerson, 839 P.2d 309 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (factors guiding continuances and procedural timing in custody matters)
- Rehn v. Rehn, 1999 UT App 41 (Utah App.) (considerations in division of debts and custody context (appellate guidance))
- Henshaw v. Henshaw, 2012 UT App 56 (Utah App.) (trial court credibility rulings in custody disputes)