Lay v. Lay
2018 UT App 137
| Utah Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Brandon Lay and Corinna Gustafson divorced in 2008 and were awarded joint legal and physical custody of their child; Lay was originally granted six overnights per 14-day period.
- Around 2011 the parties informally changed to a more stable schedule because of Lay’s work and the child’s needs: Lay had alternating weekends (Friday night through Monday morning, i.e., three overnights every two weeks) and no midweek overnights.
- In 2015 each party sought modifications; the district court ordered the original (divorce-decree) schedule for summer months but, for the school year, limited Lay to alternating weekends of Friday and Saturday nights only (removing the Sunday overnight) and denied midweek parent-time.
- Lay appealed, asserting (1) the district court misinterpreted Utah Code § 30-3-35.1 and was required to adopt the statute’s optional increased parent-time schedule, and (2) the court exceeded its discretion and made legally inadequate factual findings for removing Sunday overnights and denying midweek time.
- The Court of Appeals held the statute is permissive: even if the statutory factors are shown, the court “may” but is not required to adopt the optional schedule; however, the appellate court found the district court’s factual findings legally inadequate and remanded for fuller findings on (a) whether Lay’s school-year weekend parent-time should include Sunday overnights and (b) whether Lay should have midweek parent-time during the school year.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lay) | Defendant's Argument (Gustafson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah Code § 30-3-35.1 requires a court to adopt the optional increased parent-time schedule when the noncustodial parent proves the statutory factors | § 30-3-35.1 should be read as mandatory: once factors are met the statute becomes the minimum parent-time the court must award | The statute uses permissive language and the court retains discretion to adopt or not adopt the optional schedule | Court: statutory text and definitions show “may” is permissive; court not required to adopt § 30-3-35.1 schedule |
| Whether the district court’s findings adequately support (a) removing Sunday overnights during the school year and (b) denying midweek parent-time | Findings are legally insufficient; record shows child thrived under prior schedule including Sundays and Lay regularly exercised midweek contact (lunch), so court erred or at least failed to explain basis | Court relied on child’s school attendance concerns and stability; prior informal schedule and parental flexibility justified modification | Court: findings were legally inadequate to disclose the steps/reasoning; remand for more detailed findings on both Sunday overnight and midweek parent-time questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Wight v. Wight, 268 P.3d 861 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (standard of review—parent-time determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 257 P.3d 478 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (legal adequacy of factual findings reviewed for correctness)
- Brown v. Babbitt, 353 P.3d 1262 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (review standard for sufficiency of factual findings)
- Fish v. Fish, 379 P.3d 882 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (findings must have sufficient detail to permit appellate review of discretionary decisions)
- Utley v. Mill Man Steel, Inc., 357 P.3d 992 (Utah 2015) (discussion of the absurdity doctrine and when courts may depart from plain statutory text)