Hibbens v. Hibbens
363 P.3d 524
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Lisa and Mark Hibbens divorced in 2006; decree required Mark to pay a second mortgage on Lisa’s parents’ house and pay child support for three minor children.
- Lisa refinanced the parents’ house mortgage in January 2008 but did not inform Mark; Mark continued partial payments until learning of the refinance in late 2009/early 2010 and then stopped.
- By 2013 two children had turned 18 and graduated high school (neither attended college); one married. Only one child remained a minor.
- Lisa became permanently disabled after the divorce; her monthly income fell from about $1,925 to $895 (≈53% decrease).
- Both parties filed competing petitions to modify the 2006 decree; the trial court found a substantial and material change in circumstances, terminated Mark’s mortgage obligation, ended support for the two adult children, increased support for the remaining minor child, and awarded Mark reimbursement for overpaid support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Termination of Husband’s mortgage obligation | Trial court could relieve Mark only if Lisa intentionally and distinctly waived her right to payments | Modification was proper based on substantial and material change in circumstances (refinance and sale) | Court affirmed: modification based on substantial change; termination of Mark’s obligation upheld |
| Termination of child support for two adult children | Court failed to make findings justifying termination or consider best interests; support should continue | Emancipation and lack of special needs justify ending support; decree was deviated but modifiable | Court affirmed: adult children no longer qualify under statutory definition; no special/unusual circumstances to extend support |
| Amount of child support for remaining minor | Lowering support based on Lisa’s disability/income reduction is unconscionable and not in child’s best interest | Statute permits modification when substantial change (≥30% income change); adjustment to guideline amount required if ≥15% difference | Court affirmed: Lisa’s 53% income drop and emancipation of siblings produced ≥15% difference; court adjusted support per guidelines (increase for minor child) |
| Requirement to make specific best-interest findings for modification | Court failed to analyze best interests or potential college attendance for minor | Court made required factual findings; no evidence of necessity to extend support; parents can resolve college aid | Court affirmed: findings were sufficient; no special findings justified extending support beyond age 18 |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodward v. Woodward, 709 P.2d 393 (Utah 1985) (deference to trial court on child support findings)
- Thornblad v. Thornblad, 849 P.2d 1197 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (court may order support to age 21 with findings of special or unusual circumstances)
- Harris v. Harris, 585 P.2d 435 (Utah 1978) (power to extend support when necessary with supporting findings)
- D’Elia v. Rice Dev., Inc., 147 P.3d 515 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (appellate court accepts unchallenged trial findings as true)
- Diener v. Diener, 98 P.3d 1178 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (trial court must make findings on material issues when modifying support)