Goggin v. Goggin, 299 P.3d 1079

Dennis Goggin and Tammy Goggin (Tammy) divorced after a 2005 separation; litigation spanned about a decade with Dennis repeatedly violating discovery orders.
The divorce court appointed a receiver and ordered forensic accountants due to Dennis’s conduct; Tammy incurred fees and costs related to these steps.
Collateral Court in a related action found an express oral contract regarding Riverbend Property, but Goggin I later held no enforceable contract existed.
The district court treated Riverbend Property as marital and ordered damages and distribution, applying unclean hands to Dennis’s conduct.
Tammy’s fees, costs, and the dissipated assets were allocated in Tammy’s favor, with Dennis challenging several setoffs/credits.
The Utah Supreme Court analyzed whether sanctions and property distribution exceeded discretion and remanded for adjustments consistent with its ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tammy’s attorney fees and costs were properly awarded	Tammy incurred fees due to Dennis’s contempt and discovery abuses	Some fees were not caused by Dennis’s conduct or breach	The court validly awarded some sanctions but must excise fees not caused by Dennis’s conduct
Whether dissipated assets should have been credited to Dennis	Tammy received full dissipated asset value as sanction	Dennis may be entitled to setoff for dissipated assets	Court erred by not crediting Dennis for dissipated assets or estimating upper limits; remanded
Whether Dennis is entitled to a setoff for Riverbend Property separate-property contributions	Riverbend Property was marital but Dennis contributed separately; credits due	Collateral Order already settled marital nature; no further credits	Remand to determine if Dennis is entitled to setoff or credit for his separate-property contributions
Whether the court properly refused salary/rent in light of unclean hands	Rejection of salary/rent was appropriate due to Dennis’s misconduct	Some relief could be owed for labor/services	Court acted within discretion in denying such credit based on unclean hands; affirmed for those aspects

Goggin v. Goggin (Goggin I), 2011 UT 76, 267 P.3d 885 (Utah 2011) (longstanding issues about enforceability of oral contract and equitable distribution)
Burke v. Burke, 733 P.2d 133 (Utah 1987) (equitable distribution and separate property concepts)
Parker v. Parker, 996 P.2d 565 (Utah Court of Appeals 2000) (setoff/credit considerations in property division)
Hughes v. Cafferty, 89 P.3d 148 (Utah 2004) (attorney fees in divorce actions and sanctions guidance)
Jackson v. Jackson, 617 P.2d 338 (Utah 1980) (equitable distribution principles and abuse of discretion restraints)
Stewart v. Utah Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 885 P.2d 759 (Utah 1994) (inherent powers and sanctions framework)