Pingree v. Pingree
2015 UT App 302
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother (Rita) and Father (James) divorced after a joint-custody settlement; divorce decree awarded joint legal and physical custody and non-modifiable alimony to Mother in exchange for her forgoing an out-of-state residency.
- While divorce was pending, Mother sought to relocate first to North Carolina, then after decree sought to move to Connecticut to begin a medical residency; Father opposed both requests.
- A court-appointed custody evaluator opposed relocation; the parties negotiated and entered a settlement keeping Mother in Utah and providing non-modifiable alimony because she would forgo an out-of-state residency.
- Mother filed a motion to relocate after the divorce; a commissioner recommended denial as not in the child’s best interest; Mother objected and the district court adopted the commissioner’s recommendation.
- The district court denied relocation, found relocation was not in the child’s best interest, and ordered a conditional change of custody: Mother may move, but if she does, primary physical custody will transfer to Father.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was relocation in child's best interest? | Mother argued relocation would benefit Child (residency opportunity, evidence excluded below) | Father argued relocation would disrupt Child’s continuity and bonding, and evaluator opposed relocation | Court held relocation was not in Child’s best interest after considering continuity, bonds, evaluator findings, and co-parenting concerns |
| Did court err by ordering conditional change of custody without "compelling circumstances"? | Mother: no compelling reason to change custody; current arrangement works | Father: statute allows conditional custody change if court finds relocation not in child’s best interest | Court held conditional change authorized by Utah Code §30-3-37(4); no separate "compelling circumstances" finding required |
| Did settlement agreement bar relocation? | Mother sought to relitigate despite bargaining away out-of-state residency | Father relied on settlement terms (non-modifiable alimony tied to forgoing out-of-state residency) | Court noted settlement agreement supports enforcing the bargained-for consequence (choice to relocate triggers custody change) |
| Was Mother denied due process / right to present evidence? | Mother claimed court improperly limited evidence and thus denied due process | Father: court had sufficient evidence and complied with procedures; commissioner’s findings adopted | Court found Mother did not show an unmet genuine issue of material fact that required additional evidence; no due process violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Donnelly v. Donnelly, 301 P.3d 6 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (standards of review for custody and statutory interpretation)
- Grindstaff v. Grindstaff, 241 P.3d 365 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (custody determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Schindler v. Schindler, 776 P.2d 84 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (best-interests standard is primary in custody decisions)
- Hudema v. Carpenter, 989 P.2d 491 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (distinguishing modification-of-custody standards from relocation analysis)
- Veysey v. Veysey, 339 P.3d 131 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (district court may adopt commissioner’s findings and appellatereviews them as district court findings)