Sellers v. Sellers
246 P.3d 173
Utah Ct. App.2010Background
- Utah Court of Appeals, Sellers v. Sellers, No. 20090518, 2010 UT App 393, Dec. 30, 2010.
- JoAnn Sellers appeals a custody order challenging best-interest analysis, custody evaluator recommendation, lack of parenting plan, and ambiguous findings.
- Trial court awarded joint legal custody; controversy over parenting plan, visitation, and overnight stays.
- Alimony issue: trial court stated no alimony now or in future, but party preserved and court held modification rights remain under Utah law.
- Court notes alimony modification statute permits modification for substantial, unforeseen changes; decree language to the contrary is a nullity.
- Cross-appeal challenges child support calculation; trial court’s $729.26 monthly support; appellant failed to marshal supporting evidence; tax implications of property division deemed speculative; overall, court affirms with modification rights preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody order: best interests and evaluator recommendation preserved? | JoAnn contends trial court failed to consider best interests and used improper evaluator recommendation. | Glen argues issues were not preserved for appeal. | Waived; not properly preserved for review. |
| Alimony modification rights versus decree language | JoAnn argues modification rights were preserved and should apply despite decree. | Glen argues decree language controls and no modification rights apply. | Modification rights remain intact; decree language nullified. |
| Alimony findings and need calculation | JoAnn asserts need-based alimony should be analyzed; court erred in findings. | Glen asserts no alimony due given JoAnn's income and needs. | Court affirms no alimony due; JoAnn earns sufficient income; findings not disturbed. |
| Cross-appeal on child support calculation | Glen challenges $729.26/month; disputes calculation. | JoAnn contends proper marshaling of evidence supports trial finding. | Glen failed to marshal evidence; argument rejected. |
| Tax consequences in property division | Glen highlights potential tax impact of retirement assets. | Findings treat tax implications as speculative. | Speculative tax impact rejected; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olson v. Olson, 226 P.3d 751 (Utah 2010) (needs-based alimony required; income need governs award)
- Jensen v. Jensen, 197 P.3d 117 (Utah App. 2008) (income-equalization only when needs require and other party can pay)
- In re K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (invoked to discuss preservation and invited error doctrine)
- 438 Main Street v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (preservation of issues and detail of findings standard)
- State v. Brown, 948 P.2d 337 (Utah 1997) (invited error doctrine applied to trial strategy)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (invited error doctrine cautions against misleading trial court)
- Bingham v. Bingham, 872 P.2d 1065 (Utah Ct.App. 1994) (income-need framework in alimony)