Granger v. Granger
374 P.3d 1043
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Troy and Cindy Granger married in 2003 and divorced after trial; both agreed in pleadings and at trial to divide retirement assets "pursuant to the Woodward formula," but never defined the mathematical method for a 401(k).
- Husband's 401(k) balance at divorce was $591,938.64; Husband's proposed QDRO (after decree) used a time-rule style calculation (½ × total account × years married / years employed) giving Wife about $162,635; Wife argued marital contributions only should be divided, yielding about $199,206.
- Wife objected to the QDRO and moved (characterized as Rule 60/motion for clarification) after Husband provided the specific calculation; the district court denied relief as untimely and approved Husband's QDRO calculation.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals held the parties lacked a meeting of the minds about how Woodward applied to a defined contribution plan and concluded the district court erred in accepting Husband's calculation without adequate findings.
- The court remanded for the district court to determine an equitable apportionment of the 401(k) (it did not endorse Wife's simple subtraction method) and awarded Wife appellate attorney fees; Husband's cross-appeal for fees was rendered moot by the remand.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Woodward formula, as agreed, required dividing only marital contributions in Husband's 401(k) | "Woodward" means equally divide the portion accumulated during the marriage (subtract premarital contributions and split marital growth) | Parties stipulated to use the Woodward formula broadly; Husband's time-rule calculation implementing Woodward on total account is binding | No—there was no meeting of the minds about applying Woodward to a defined contribution plan; remand required for equitable apportionment |
| Whether the district court properly accepted Husband's QDRO calculation without clearer agreement or findings | The QDRO misapplied Woodward to a defined contribution plan and produced an inequitable result | The parties repeatedly agreed to "Woodward" and Wife should be bound by that stipulation | The court reversed acceptance of Husband's calculation and remanded for fresh equitable division |
| Whether Wife's motion challenging the QDRO was untimely under Rule 60 | Motion sought clarification of an ambiguous decree after seeing the QDRO; thus timely | Motion was a Rule 60 challenge filed outside the 90-day window | Court treated the filing as a timely motion for clarification (not barred by Rule 60 timing) |
| Whether Husband is entitled to attorney fees for Rule 60/motion to quash | N/A (Wife sought fees on appeal) | Husband sought fees below; cross-appealed denial | Moot—remand changed prevailing party; trial court must revisit fee allocation; appellate award made to Wife for this appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodward v. Woodward, 656 P.2d 431 (Utah 1982) (establishes time-rule approach for dividing defined-benefit retirement benefits when present value is not readily ascertainable)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 330 P.3d 704 (Utah 2014) (discusses the Woodward time-rule and emphasizes equitable, context-specific property division)
- Oliekan v. Oliekan, 147 P.3d 464 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (permits modified Woodward applications where facts justify adaptation, e.g., converted lump-sum benefits)
- Ashby v. Ashby, 227 P.3d 246 (Utah 2010) (spouses' contracts in divorce are enforceable under contract principles if negotiated in good faith and not inconsistent with court's equitable duties)
- Goggin v. Goggin, 267 P.3d 885 (Utah 2011) (meeting of the minds and definiteness of essential contract terms are required for enforceability)
- Greene v. Greene, 751 P.2d 827 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (marital property includes retirement funds accrued in whole or in part during the marriage)