Gardner v. Gardner, 294 P.3d 600

Husband and Wife married in 1984; final divorce decree 1994 awarded the marital home to Wife and included a hold harmless provision demanding Wife assume and pay and hold Husband harmless from the mortgage.
Husband began paying the mortgage himself after the decree, deducting from alimony, while district court later ordered Husband to pay alimony directly to Wife since she was obligated on the mortgage.
From 2007 to 2009 Wife was chronically late on mortgage payments, incurring late fees; there was a rolling arrearage period in late 2008.
Husband petitioned to modify the decree and sought contempt for Wife’s alleged hold harmless breach; district court held Wife did not breach and denied modification, based on its interpretation of hold harmless.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the district court erred in interpreting the hold harmless provision, and that the modification petition must be reconsidered; factual findings were also found inconsistent with the record and require remand for proper development of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Interpretation of hold harmless scope	Gardner argues the hold harmless provision indemnifies against liability including credit harm.	Gardner contends the clause only protected against actual payments, not broader fiscal injury.	Hold harmless indemnifies against liability, including credit harm; not limited to actual payment.
Whether fiscal injury is within the hold harmless scope	Husband asserts harm like credit damage is within hold harmless.	Wife argues such harms are speculative and outside the clause’s scope.	Fiscal injury such as credit damage falls within hold harmless; need not be monetarily quantified.
Contempt standard and causation	Wife’s late payments violated the hold harmless; causation of harm to Husband should be shown.	Contempt requires showing violation of a court order; causation of harm is not a prerequisite.	Contempt requires proof of violation; harm causation is relevant to remedies but not a prerequisite for contempt.
Petition to modify the decree	The alleged changes in Wife’s timing of payments and financial status constitute substantial changes warranting modification.	Modification denied due to misinterpretation of hold harmless and lack of substantial change.	Remand required for proper consideration of modification in light of correct hold harmless interpretation.

Marsh v. Marsh, 973 P.2d 988 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (contempt standard and discretion in sanctions; injury not required for contempt finding)
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 248 P.3d 65 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (contract-interpretation approach to divorce decrees)
Café Rio, Inc. v. Larkin-Gifford-Overton, LLC, 207 P.3d 1235 (Utah 2010) (contract interpretation of divorce-decree language and hold harmless provisions)