Shuman v. Shuman
2017 UT App 192
| Utah Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wesley and Catherine Shuman obtained a bifurcated divorce in 2011; remaining issues were tried in 2015 after which the trial court awarded Catherine primary physical and sole legal custody of 2 of the 3 minor children and resolved property, debt, child support, and expense disputes.
- Trial lasted two days; the court made extensive findings (about six pages) addressing custody, credibility, asset values, and expense claims.
- Wesley appealed, arguing the trial court’s factual findings were inadequate and unsupported by sufficient evidence on custody, marital asset/debt allocation, medical/childcare reimbursements, child support credits for extended parent-time, and that the parent-time order contradicted findings.
- The appellate court affirmed most rulings but identified specific deficiencies: (1) the marital-asset offset calculation may have double-counted items (heat blankets) and requires explanation or adjustment; (2) the trial court failed to make findings about an alleged marital debt to Wesley’s sister for stone engraving equipment; (3) the court omitted findings addressing Wesley’s claim that Catherine owes him medical expense reimbursements; and (4) the court failed to enter findings regarding credits for Wesley’s documented extended parent-time for child support.
- The matter was remanded for additional findings and, if necessary, adjustments to awards: adjust Catherine’s $16,000 offset or explain it, reduce medical/childcare award to Catherine by $702.44, decide allocation of the sister loan debt, address Wesley’s medical-expense reimbursement claim, and determine child-support credits for extended parent-time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wesley) | Defendant's Argument (Catherine) | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Custody — adequacy & sufficiency of findings | Findings omitted material evidence and failed to address factors favoring Wesley; he should have primary custody | Findings were detailed, included subsidiary facts and credibility determinations supporting Catherine’s custody | Court: findings adequate and supported; custody award to Catherine affirmed | |
| Marital assets & offset calculation | Trial court relied on Catherine’s values despite discrepancies; offset appears excessive and double-counted heat blankets | Court credited Catherine’s trial exhibit values; discrepancies explained at trial | Court: remand to either explain why offset exceeds what trial evidence shows or adjust offset to account for double-counted blankets | |
| Marital debt (sister loan for engraving equipment) | Court failed to classify or assign this alleged marital debt despite evidence | Court did not address debt in findings | Court: reversible gap — remand to make findings on whether debt is marital and assign responsibility, amend division if needed | |
| Medical & childcare reimbursements | Court’s award to Catherine lacked basis, omitted consideration of Wesley’s asserted reimbursements and duplicate entries | Catherine conceded duplicates; court found her trial documentation credible and ordered reimbursement | Court: reduce Catherine’s award by $702.44 for duplicates; remand for findings re: Wesley’s claim that Catherine owes him reimbursement | |
| Child support — credits for extended parent-time | Wesley entitled to credits for documented extended parent-time; court failed to enter findings or give credits | Court informally acknowledged credit if documented but did not make findings | Court: remand for findings on extended parent-time credits and amend support order if appropriate | |
| Parent-time order consistency | Final order restricts parent-time and splits breaks contrary to findings that Wesley entitled to entire fall/spring breaks | Wesley argues orders add restrictions contrary to findings | Issue inadequately briefed/preserved on appeal | Court: not considered on appeal for lack of preservation/citation |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 257 P.3d 478 (Utah Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing adequacy of findings)
- In re S.T., 928 P.2d 393 (Utah Ct. App.) (findings must include subsidiary facts to show reasoning but need not recite all evidence)
- Fish v. Fish, 379 P.3d 882 (Utah Ct. App.) (adequacy of findings to permit appellate review)
- Rayner v. Rayner, 316 P.3d 455 (Utah Ct. App.) (findings adequate if steps to ultimate conclusion are apparent)
- Taft v. Taft, 379 P.3d 890 (Utah Ct. App.) (deference to trial court factual findings; remand when findings omitted on material issues)
- State v. Nielsen, 326 P.3d 645 (Utah) (appellant must marshal supporting evidence to challenge sufficiency)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah) (preservation requirement for adequacy-of-findings challenges)
- In re K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah) (preservation rules for findings issues)