Cook v. Cook
298 P.3d 700
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- This is a memorandum decision from the Utah Court of Appeals, 2013 UT App 57.
- Lon Arden Cook (Husband) and Brigette Jeanne Cook (Wife) divorced in 2011.
- Husband appeals the Decree of Divorce asserting six substantive errors; the court affirms.
- Preservation of trial court findings is central: Husband did not object to proposed findings in the trial court.
- The trial court awarded custody to Wife, and set parenting time as a minimum under statutory guidelines.
- Other disputes involve division of home equity, pension/retirement valuation, and attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of trial findings | Cook contends findings are inadequate. | Wife argues findings preserved and adequate. | Issues not preserved; merit not considered. |
| Custody discretion | Cook seeks joint custody contrary to evaluator’s recommendation. | Trial court properly refused joint custody due to lack of cooperation. | No abuse; trial court within discretion. |
| Parent-time award | Court should follow evaluator and grant more than standard time. | Statutory presumption allows standard parenting time as a minimum. | Respect for statutory presumption; no abuse. |
| Property division—home equity | Husband claims improper credit for premarital contributions. | Court properly valued and allocated home equity. | No abuse; record supports award. |
| Retirement assets valuation | Should value as of separation date, not trial date. | No clear legal error; present value should be considered. | Value supported by authorities; not error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Hall, 858 P.2d 1018 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (finding adequacy is essential to avoid abuse of discretion)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (preservation requires clear objection in trial court)
- Seamons v. Brandley, 268 P.3d 195 (Utah App. 2011) (exceptional circumstances/plain error preservation rule)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 263 P.3d 1200 (Utah App. 2011) (preservation rule – consider merits only if preserved)
- Trubetzkoy v. Trubetzkoy, 205 P.3d 891 (Utah App. 2009) (broad discretion in custody with statutory guidance)
- Dunn v. Dunn, 802 P.2d 1314 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (present value of marital retirement assets favored)