Robinson v. Robinson
368 P.3d 147
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Michael S. Robinson (Husband) and Debra J. Robinson (Wife) signed a stipulated property settlement (Stipulation) in 2007 allocating Phoenix Plaza to Husband and requiring him to refinance and pay Wife $1,912,696 in agreed sums.
- The Stipulation required Husband to file a refinance application within 15 days and to complete refinancing within 120 days, with interest if delayed. The decree incorporating the Stipulation issued December 31, 2008.
- Husband never applied for refinancing, resisted sale efforts, recorded multiple lis pendens, filed separate fraud litigation and bankruptcy, and failed to pay the stipulated amounts. Wife sought enforcement and contempt remedies.
- In March 2012 the district court found Husband in contempt, entered a $1,912,696 judgment (the amount he agreed to pay), and awarded Wife attorney fees; the court later released several lis pendens as wrongful liens and apportioned additional attorney-fee awards.
- Husband appealed, arguing among other things that the contempt judgment exceeded the actual injury, that he could not be held to a pre-decree 15-day deadline, and that defenses of mistake, impossibility, and fraud should excuse noncompliance; Wife sought appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Husband's Argument | Wife's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $1,912,696 judgment was an improper contempt sanction beyond actual injury | Judgment was an excessive sanction based solely on failure to refinance Phoenix Plaza | The monetary judgment was enforcement of the parties’ stipulation (not a punitive contempt fine); contempt sanction (jail) was separate and suspended | Affirmed: judgment enforced contractual obligation; contempt sanction was not excessive |
| Whether Husband could be held in contempt for not meeting a 2007 15‑day application deadline incorporated into the 2008 decree | It’s impossible to be held in contempt for failing to meet a pre-decree 2007 deadline | Contempt was based on ongoing failure to apply for refinancing at any time after the decree and failure to pay agreed sums | Affirmed: contempt based on continued noncompliance, not solely the 15‑day deadline |
| Whether defenses of mistake, impossibility, or fraud could excuse contempt | Mistake/impossibility/fraud excuse enforcement because circumstances made refinancing impossible or Stipulation invalid | These defenses were previously litigated and rejected; law-of-the-case/claim preclusion bars relitigation; no new unforeseen impossibility alleged | Affirmed: defenses barred by prior rulings or meritless as asserted; Bradshaw limited impossibility defense to post-order loss of ability to perform |
| Whether lis pendens recorded by Husband were exempt from wrongful-lien relief and whether the divorce court had jurisdiction to release them | Lis pendens are exempt from wrongful-lien statute; motion to release must be filed in the lis pendens case (West Jordan dept.) | Wrongful-lien statute can apply to lis pendens; the divorce court had authority to release lis pendens affecting marital property and found the filings failed to give notice of claim | Affirmed: lis pendens could constitute wrongful liens; district court properly released them and made sufficient findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Goggin v. Goggin, 299 P.3d 1079 (Utah 2013) (standard: review contempt/ sanction awards for abuse of discretion and sanctions cannot exceed actual injury)
- Robinson v. Robinson, 232 P.3d 1081 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (prior appellate decision rejecting Husband’s attempt to set aside stipulation for mistake or impossibility)
- Bradshaw v. Kershaw, 627 P.2d 528 (Utah 1981) (impossibility may be defense to contempt only if ability to comply was lost after the order; earlier inability is res judicata)
- Eldridge v. Farnsworth, 166 P.3d 639 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (when assessing whether a lis pendens is wrongful, courts evaluate good faith based on facts known at the time it was recorded)
- IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 196 P.3d 588 (Utah 2008) (law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation in successive stages of same litigation)
- Macris v. Sculptured Software, Inc., 24 P.3d 984 (Utah 2001) (standard of review for applying law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Connell v. Connell, 233 P.3d 836 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (distinguishing attorney fees for establishing orders versus enforcing orders under Utah Code §30-3-3)