Nave Free v. Free, 444 P.3d 3

Husband and Wife divorced in 2013 after ~23 years; they stipulated child support above guideline amounts (upward deviation) tied to the ongoing medical needs of two older children and to division of marital estate.
Decree set child support at $7,629/month (later step-downs tied to children turning 18), approximately $4,558/month above guidelines; deviation expressly described as for the children’s "medical needs" and to allow Wife to remain at home.
Wife later remarried, moved to Wyoming, mortgaged and rented out the Heber City house, and received rental income; Wife’s monthly income at the time of the modification petition was found to be $3,000.
Husband petitioned to modify child support alleging: (1) Wife’s income materially increased due to rental income; (2) Wife’s relative wealth increased because she now lives in a two‑income household; and (3) the children’s medical needs had decreased (so the upward deviation was no longer justified).
Trial court found no substantial change in Wife’s income, relative wealth, or the children’s medical needs, denied the modification, and awarded attorney fees to Wife; Husband appealed.

Issue	Husband's Argument	Wife's Argument	Held
Whether Wife’s income materially increased (>=30%) such that child support should be reduced	Wife’s income rose >40% from $4,084 to $5,834/month if rental income is counted, so modification warranted	Wife’s actual income at petition was $3,000/month; rental income offset by mortgage/expenses; net increase <30%	Court affirmed: Husband failed to show >=30% increase; actual increase (even counting rent) was ~16% from divorce income to petition income, not a material change.
Whether Wife’s relative wealth materially increased after remarriage (two‑income household)	Remarriage and shared household income materially improved Wife’s resources, warranting reduction	Mortgage and expenses on rental property offset rents; relative wealth largely unchanged	Court affirmed: Husband did not prove a substantial change in relative wealth.
Whether the children’s medical needs materially changed to justify reducing the upward deviation	Out‑of‑pocket medical expenses decreased, so the deviation (tied to medical needs) should be reduced	Deviation was based on the children’s ongoing medical needs (conditions), not merely expenses; no evidence needs changed	Court affirmed: Husband conflated expenses with needs; no evidence of changed medical conditions, so no modification.

Fish v. Fish, 379 P.3d 882 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (standard of review for modification determinations and legal correctness of underlying findings)
Earhart v. Earhart, 365 P.3d 719 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (presumption of validity for trial court’s change-of-circumstances findings)
Diener v. Diener, 98 P.3d 1178 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (moving party must show substantial material change and that change was not contemplated in decree)
Bayles v. Bayles, 981 P.2d 403 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (stipulations in contemplation of divorce are binding absent timely relief)
Batty v. Batty, 153 P.3d 827 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (property‑distribution stipulations are given great weight)
Cantrell v. Cantrell, 323 P.3d 586 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (distinguishable guidance on deviations tied to post‑divorce changes)
Bagley v. Bagley, 387 P.3d 1000 (Utah 2016) (principles of statutory interpretation; look to plain language)
Dole v. Dole, 437 P.3d 464 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (statutory construction principles)