Ouk v. Ouk
2015 UT App 104
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Sibel (Wife) and Sovatphone Ouk (Husband) divorced after trials in 2009 and 2012; remaining issues in the 2012 trial included child support, distribution of marital property, dissipation, and attorney fees.
- Trial court ordered Husband to pay $1,760/month child support and entered judgment of $25,727 for unpaid support.
- Court awarded Wife $100,000 for Husband’s dissipation of marital assets (including $42,000 from sale of a Mercedes) and found Husband had taken a $185,000 line of credit on the marital home without Wife’s knowledge.
- Husband provided inconsistent and allegedly deceptive financial documents; the court concluded his testimony and records were not credible and estimated income by averaging his sworn 2009–2011 declarations.
- Trial court ordered Husband to pay approximately $95,000 in Wife’s attorney fees and costs; Wife sought appellate fees after prevailing on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deduction of business expenses from gross income for child support | Court correctly used adjusted gross income rules and should not deduct undocumented business expenses | Trial court erred by not deducting expenses listed in Husband’s financial declarations | Court affirmed: Husband failed to prove expenses were necessary business expenses, so no deduction required. |
| Imputation of income for child support | Court properly estimated Husband’s income based on prior sworn declarations given unreliable current records | Court improperly imputed income and failed to perform statutory imputation analysis | Court held it did not impute income; it estimated actual income from 2009–2011 averages, so imputation statute analysis was not required. |
| Dissipation of marital assets (line of credit proceeds) | Wife showed apparent dissipation (loan obtained without her benefit); burden shifted to Husband to trace funds | Husband testified line proceeds were used for business (GMA) and offered expert testimony | Court affirmed dissipation finding: Husband failed to credibly account for loan proceeds; court permissibly estimated dissipation and awarded $100,000. |
| Attorney fees (trial and appeal) | Wife lacks resources; Husband has significant business assets and ability to pay; fees reasonable | Husband argued fee award ignored decline in business value and over-relied on book equity | Court affirmed trial fee award as supported by evidence and credibility findings; appellate fees awarded because Wife substantially prevailed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goggin v. Goggin, 299 P.3d 1079 (Utah 2013) (trial court property-distribution decisions entitled to deference; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Barrani v. Barrani, 334 P.3d 994 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (party claiming business expense deductions must prove necessity)
- Rayner v. Rayner, 316 P.3d 455 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (imputation analysis involves voluntariness and determination of appropriate imputed income)
- Parker v. Parker, 996 P.2d 565 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (after showing apparent dissipation, burden shifts to dissipating party to account for funds)
- Glauser Storage, LLC v. Smedley, 27 P.3d 565 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (fact-finder may disbelieve self-serving or uncorroborated testimony)
- Stonehocker v. Stonehocker, 176 P.3d 476 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations in domestic cases)
- Gardner v. Gardner, 748 P.2d 1076 (Utah 1988) (fee awards must follow from and be supported by evidence)