Paulson v. Paulson, 2026 UT App 108

Background

Christopher and Trishna Paulson married in 1992 under a California premarital agreement making most after-acquired property separate property and requiring written transmutation. 1
During the marriage, Trishna sold separate stock and generated investment funds, some of which she deposited into the parties’ joint account and used to buy assets. 2
Trishna filed for divorce in 2018, and the parties litigated property characterization, alimony, recusal, and attorney fees over several years. 3
Trishna obtained partial summary judgments declaring sixteen assets her separate property, and the court traced purchases to her separate funds using direct and exhaustion tracing. 4
The trial court excluded Christopher’s alimony expert for deficient disclosure, then granted summary judgment against his alimony claim for lack of evidence of need. 5
The court denied Christopher’s attorney-fee request and his motion to disqualify the trial judge, but the appellate court later reversed the expert, alimony, and fee rulings. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Christopher’s expert disclosure inadequate under rule 26? 7	Trishna said the disclosure lacked specific opinions and case-specific support.	Christopher said the disclosure sufficiently identified the subject matter.	Yes; the disclosure was deficient. 8
Was the deficient expert disclosure harmless? 9	Trishna claimed she was harmed because she chose not to depose or rebut Expert.	Christopher said his later report and deposition offer cured any defect.	Yes; the trial court abused discretion in finding harm. 10
Did the alimony summary judgment stand after Expert’s exclusion? 11	Trishna argued Christopher lacked evidence of financial need.	Christopher argued exclusion of Expert destroyed the basis for summary judgment.	No; reversed and remanded. 12
Were Trishna’s assets properly held separate property? 13	Trishna relied on the premarital agreement, tracing, and California transmutation law.	Christopher argued commingling and signed documents made the assets marital.	Yes; the property rulings were affirmed. 14
Was Christopher entitled to attorney fees? 15	Christopher claimed financial need and challenged the fee analysis.	Trishna argued the agreement waived fees and Christopher had resources.	Fee denial reversed; court miscounted available resources. 16
Did the judge’s prior law-firm relationship create an appearance of bias? 17	Christopher claimed the judge should recuse because Trishna’s counsel was in the same firm as the judge’s former attorney.	Trishna argued the relationship had ended long before the firm appeared in the case.	No; denial of disqualification affirmed. 18

Key Cases Cited

Phillips v. Skabelund, 482 P.3d 237 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (trial courts have discretion in rule 26 disclosure completeness and harmlessness 19)
Kouris v. Utah Highway Patrol, 70 P.3d 72 (Utah 2003) (summary judgment legal issues receive no deference 20)
Wollsieffer v. Wollsieffer, 446 P.3d 84 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (attorney-fee awards in domestic cases are reviewed for abuse of discretion 21)
State v. Boyer, 460 P.3d 569 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (bias and recusal are reviewed for correctness; appearance of bias turns on reasonable perception 22)
RJW Media Inc. v. Heath, 392 P.3d 956 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (expert disclosures require specific opinions and facts, not broad topics 23)
Butler v. Mediaport Ent. Inc., 508 P.3d 619 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (harmlessness in disclosure violations is context dependent 24)
Al-Imari v. Utah Department of Transportation, 586 P.3d 965 (Utah Ct. App. 2026) (harmlessness requires assessing whether the disclosure defect persisted at the time of decision 25)
Dahl v. Dahl, 459 P.3d 276 (Utah 2015) (attorney fees in divorce depend on need, ability to pay, and reasonableness; recusal uses reasonable-question standard 26)
Krajeski v. Krajeski, 565 P.3d 544 (Utah Ct. App. 2025) (attorney-fee awards are not about whether assets are marital or separate 27)
In re Marriage of Bonvino, 194 Cal. Rptr. 3d 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (California transmutation requires an express written declaration by the adversely affected spouse 28)
In re Marriage of Koester, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 76 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (general transfer language is insufficient for transmutation; accidental transmutation is disfavored 29)
North Park Holdings LLC v. Duke Rental Co., 567 P.3d 1085 (Utah Ct. App. 2025) (appellants must meaningfully engage with the district court’s reasoning 30)
Yknot Global Ltd. v. Stellia Ltd., 379 P.3d 36 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (unsupported assertions do not satisfy an appellant’s burden of persuasion 31)
Fort Pierce Indus. Park Phases II, III & IV Owners Ass'n v. Shakespeare, 379 P.3d 1218 (Utah 2016) (trial-court merits rulings can cure preservation objections 32)
State v. Flora, 459 P.3d 975 (Utah 2020) (unpreserved issues are ordinarily not considered on appeal 33)