Spall-Goldsmith v. Goldsmith
288 P.3d 1105
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Utah Court of Appeals memorandum decision in case No. 20110628‑CA involving Renee Spall‑Goldsmith (Mother) and Willard L. Goldsmith IV (Father).
- After a July 8, 2010 one‑day trial, Judge Henriod awarded Mother physical custody, joint legal custody, and Father ~160 overnight stays per year (about 44%).
- Decree set Father’s base child support at $509/month based on a sole custody worksheet and allowed offset for Father’s extracurricular payments; no final numbers were calculated at trial.
- Judge Henriod retired; Judge Adkins issued the Decree on June 20, 2011, reaffirming Mother’s physical custody, joint legal custody, and similar parent‑time, with support based on the sole custody worksheet.
- Father appealed contending the joint custody worksheet should have been used because Father exceeded the 30% overnight threshold for joint physical custody; Mother argued the sole worksheet was proper since Father did not contribute to Child’s expenses beyond child support.
- Utah law defines joint physical custody as (1) overnight stays >30% and (2) both parents contributing to Child’s expenses beyond paying child support; court held Father failed the second element, so the sole custody worksheet was correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sole custody worksheet was proper despite >30% overnights | Father argues joint worksheet required under 78B‑12‑102(14). | Mother contends sole worksheet applies since expenses contributions were not shown. | Court upheld sole custody worksheet; no joint custody due to lack of expense contributions. |
| Whether deviation from joint custody guidelines required findings | Father asserts deviation was warranted given overnights. | Mother argues no deviation since elements for joint custody not met. | No deviation findings needed; joint worksheet not required absent second element. |
| Statutory interpretation of joint physical custody requirements | Father maintains both elements satisfied for joint custody. | Mother maintains only overnight element met, not expense contributions. | Definition requires both overnight >30% and expense contributions; not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyce v. Goble, 8 P.3d 1042 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (defines joint physical custody with a two‑part test (bright line rule) including expense contributions)
- Rehn v. Rehn, 974 P.2d 306 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (requires joint custody worksheet when father has substantial custody and contributes to expenses)
- Udy v. Udy, 893 P.2d 1097 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (analyzes use of joint custody worksheet based on custody time and expenses)
- Allred v. Allred, 797 P.2d 1108 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (emphasizes detailed findings for deviation under 78B‑12‑202(3))
- Davis v. Davis, 263 P.3d 520 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (reaffirms standard of review for statutory interpretation vs. abuse of discretion)
- Salt Lake Cnty v. Holliday Water Co., 234 P.3d 1105 (Utah Supreme Court 2010) (clarifies plain language approach to statutory interpretation)