Danneman v. Danneman, 286 P.3d 309

In January 2006, a divorce decree ordered Husband and Wife to share equally in future disbursements and revenues from the Film The Best Two Years, produced by Harvest Films, LC (Husband’s preexisting company).
In June 2008, the parties mediated a settlement (the 2008 Order) resolving issues and detailing how disbursements and accounting would occur, including 60-day accounting after funds from Halestorm, copies of checks, and annual K-1s.
In 2009, Wife sought an order to show cause to hold Husband in contempt for alleged noncompliance; Husband responded with his own affidavits and exhibits asserting compliance.
The domestic relations commissioner recommended in March 2010 that Husband was substantially compliant and that issues were res judicata; the district court later affirmed in August 2010, ordering Wife to pay $500 in attorney fees.
On appeal, Wife challenges the district court’s handling of the commissioner’s recommendation, burden of proof for contempt, the sufficiency of the district court’s findings, and the attorney-fee award; the court affirms, awards Husband appraisal of appellate fees, and remands for a determination of those fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly rejected Wife’s objection to the commissioner’s recommendation	Wife argues a distinct claim exists and res judicata/law-of-the-case should not bar it	Husband contends the issue was properly resolved and parties should not relitigate	Affirmed; objections were procedurally improper and the court did not error on res judicata/law-of-the-case rationale.
Whether the district court plainly erred in placing the burden of proof in contempt	Wife asserts improper burden placement favored Husband	Husband contends no burden-shift occurred and he complied	No plain error; burden remained with Wife to prove noncompliance; no harmful error shown.
Whether the August 2010 ruling provided sufficient factual detail	Wife claims findings lacked sufficient subsidiary facts	District court adequately supported its conclusions	Waived for lack of preservation; sufficiency not reached on appeal.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding Wife attorney fees to Husband	Wife challenges basis for awarding fees under §30-3-3(2)	Court properly awarded fees to prevailing party for continued litigation	No abuse of discretion; fee award within statutory discretion.
Whether Husband should be awarded attorney fees on appeal and remanded for amount	Wife opposes appellate fees to Husband	Husband is prevailing party on appeal	Appellate fees awarded to Husband; remanded for amount.

IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 196 P.3d 588 (Utah 2008) (law-of-the-case discusses binding decisions in successive stages of litigation)
Whitehouse v. Whitehouse, 790 P.2d 57 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (continuing jurisdiction to modify a divorce decree)
Smith v. Smith, 793 P.2d 407 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (continuing jurisdiction in domestic cases; modification standard)
Gillmore v. Wright, 850 P.2d 431 (Utah 1993) (law-of-the-case explanation in domestic matters)
State v. Brooks, 271 P.3d 831 (Utah 2012) (plain-error standard in appellate review)