Robertson v. Stevens, 461 P.3d 323

Stevens and Robertson divorced in 2013; their 2015 Decree incorporated a stipulated limited nondisparagement clause prohibiting Robertson from telling third parties that Stevens "kicked her out" or "stole marital assets."
After the Decree, Robertson published a book chapter and made posts on a blog and forum that Stevens alleges disclosed private information and disparaged him.
Stevens filed a petition to modify the Decree to expand the nondisparagement clause (he did not assert a breach of the existing clause), sought a preliminary injunction to restrain Robertson’s further statements, and asked for leave to amend his petition.
Robertson moved to dismiss and opposed the injunction; the district court dismissed the modification petition and denied the injunction and leave to amend.
On appeal the sole legal question addressed was whether a district court has continuing jurisdiction to modify or expand a stipulated, non-child-related nondisparagement clause in a final divorce decree.
The Court of Appeals held the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify the stipulated clause, and therefore affirmed dismissal, denial of the injunction, and denial of leave to amend (amendment would be futile).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Court has continuing jurisdiction to modify/expand a stipulated non-child-related nondisparagement clause	Stevens: court has broad discretionary/common-law power to revisit decree terms and should expand clause due to new disparaging statements	Robertson: No statute or rule grants continuing jurisdiction over such clauses; final judgment bars substantive modification	No — court lacked jurisdiction to modify or expand the stipulated clause; dismissal affirmed
Preliminary injunction to restrain Robertson’s speech	Stevens: injunction necessary to stop further confidential/disparaging disclosures	Robertson: injunction improper because the action lacks jurisdiction and plaintiff cannot show likelihood of success on merits	Denied — plaintiff could not show likelihood of success because court lacked jurisdiction
Leave to amend petition to modify	Stevens: should be allowed to amend to cure pleading/expand requested relief	Robertson: amendment would be futile because court lacks jurisdiction	Denied as futile

Xiao Yang Li v. University of Utah, 144 P.3d 1142 (Utah 2006) (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction questions)
Varian–Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (when court lacks jurisdiction it may only dismiss)
Little Cottonwood Tanner Ditch Co. v. Sandy City, 387 P.3d 978 (Utah 2016) (post-judgment modification power is limited; courts cannot use common-law powers to change substantive rights after final judgment)
Housing Auth. v. Snyder, 44 P.3d 724 (Utah 2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
Throckmorton v. Throckmorton, 767 P.2d 121 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (res judicata applies in divorce actions)
Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction requires likelihood of success on the merits)
Hudgens v. Prosper, Inc., 243 P.3d 1275 (Utah 2010) (denial of leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile)