Taylor v. Elison
2011 UT App 272
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In 2005 divorce decree entered by stipulation gave Mother primary physical custody and included a relocation provision that automatically transfers custody to Father if Mother moves out of Utah to anywhere except Las Vegas, Nevada.
- At divorce, all parties lived in Iron County; in 2006 Father moved to Salt Lake County and Mother moved with the children to Washington County; no trigger occurred because Mother remained in Utah.
- In February 2009 Mother planned to move with the children to Flagstaff, Arizona, which would trigger the relocation provision.
- In July 2009 the district court denied Mother's petition for temporary modification but transferred custody to Father, treating it as enforcement of the decree rather than a modification.
- The court conducted a bifurcated change-in-circumstances analysis but focused on the decree’s contingency and minimized best-interests scrutiny; it also analyzed under Rule 106 for temporary modification.
- The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding the district court failed to adequately consider the children’s best interests and misapplied Rule 106 in enforcing the relocation provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did enforcement of the relocation provision violate best interests? | Mother argues best interests require analysis beyond the decree. | Father argues no changed circumstances, so best interests need not be reevaluated. | Yes; court abused discretion by not considering best interests. |
| Is a change in circumstances required before modifying an unlitigated decree? | Unlitigated decree should still be evaluated for best interests, not automatically enforceable. | Contemplated relocation in decree means no new change in circumstances. | Yes; nonlitigated decrees require best-interests evidence and allow review. |
| How should Rule 106 temporary modification be applied here? | Rule 106 should preserve the custodial status quo pending modification resolution. | Rule 106 does not compel preserving status quo if decree enforces relocation. | Rule 106 requires considering whether a change in the primary caregiver serves the child’s best interests; improper enforcement was reversible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudema v. Carpenter, 1999 UT App 290 (Utah App. 1999) (bifurcated analysis for custody modifications; emphasizes best interests)
- Elmer v. Elmer, 776 P.2d 599 (Utah 1989) (stability and best interests; cautions against rigid modification rules)
- Wright v. Wright, 941 P.2d 646 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (custody modification aims to prevent harmful ‘ping-pong’ custody)
- Davis v. Davis, 749 P.2d 647 (Utah 1988) (continuity of placement with primary caregiver important)
- Smith v. Smith, 793 P.2d 407 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (relevance of best interests despite prior decree)