Rivet v. Hoppie, 460 P.3d 1054

Rivet and Hoppie had a long-term relationship beginning in 2009; they never formally married despite multiple proposals and ceased cohabitating in 2015, formally ending the relationship by 2017.
In December 2016 Rivet petitioned the district court to recognize a common-law marriage under Utah Code § 30-1-4.5.
At three evidentiary hearings the court excluded two contested exhibits (an attorney affidavit and a community-opinion compilation) as hearsay and under Rule 408; Rivet did not call the attorney or most listed community witnesses to testify.
The district court found Rivet proved cohabitation and assumption of marital rights/duties (elements (a)–(d)) but did not prove the statutory element requiring the parties to hold themselves out as husband and wife and acquire a uniform and general reputation as such (element (e)).
Unchallenged findings showed friends/family often did not consider the couple married, the parties did not call each other husband/wife or wear rings consistently, and Hoppie resisted listing Rivet as a spouse on legal documents.
The district court denied the petition; on appeal the court affirmed, holding Rivet failed to prove the holding-out/reputation element and declining to award appellate attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rivet proved a common-law marriage under Utah Code § 30-1-4.5 (particularly the holding-out/reputation element)	Rivet argued the totality of the relationship and some witnesses supported marriage-like status	Hoppie argued friends/family and documentary evidence showed the parties did not hold themselves out as husband/wife or have a general reputation as married	Court held Rivet failed to prove element (e); findings that reputation was partial/divided defeated common-law marriage claim
Whether the district court erred by excluding Exhibits 2 and 10	Rivet argued exhibits were admissible and relevant (advanced multiple theories on appeal)	Hoppie argued exhibits were hearsay and excluded under applicable rules (including Rule 408)	Court refused to consider new appellate theories (preservation) and affirmed exclusion; Rivet did not preserve the arguments for appellate review
Whether Hoppie is entitled to appellate attorney fees under Utah R. App. P. 33	Hoppie sought fees as a frivolous appeal	Rivet maintained appeal was non-frivolous	Court declined to award fees; Rivet’s appeal was unsuccessful but not egregiously frivolous

Hansen v. Hansen, 958 P.2d 931 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (partial or divided reputation is insufficient to establish the holding-out/reputation element of a common-law marriage)
Heber City Corp. v. Simpson, 942 P.2d 307 (Utah 1997) (unchallenged factual findings are presumed supported and appellate review focuses on legal conclusions)
Kelley v. Kelley, 9 P.3d 171 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (standard for reversing a district court’s factual findings—clear error)
State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (issues not raised in the trial court are generally not preserved for appeal)
Marroquin v. Marroquin, 440 P.3d 757 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (attorney-fee sanctions for frivolous appeals applied only in egregious cases)