Taylor v. Taylor, 263 P.3d 1200

Taylor and Taylor divorced in March 2007; the court entered a bifurcated decree reserving issues for later disposition.
A September 4, 2009 judgment required Wife to pay Husband $41,000 by January 1, 2010 in exchange for relinquishing claims against Wife's businesses.
Wife failed to pay the $41,000 by the deadline, prompting a January 25, 2010 contempt hearing and threats of jail and fines.
Wife attempted to deliver the check after learning Husband would not pick it up, ultimately delivering it to Husband's attorney by 8:00 a.m. the next day.
Wife signed passport papers for their daughter with the words 'under duress' added to her signature.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the contempt finding proven beyond a reasonable doubt?	Taylor argues Wife wilfully failed to comply with the order and thus warranted contempt.	Taylor contends her actions were not willful or knowing, given reasonable attempts to comply and misinterpretation of the release.	No; evidence does not show intentional, willful noncompliance beyond reasonable doubt.
Did the trial court make the requisite findings for contempt?	Taylor asserts adequate findings supported the contempt order.	Taylor contends the court failed to set out the three substantive elements of contempt.	Findings were insufficient; appellate review is blocked by preservation issue, but ultimately reversed contempt.
Are the sanctions (30 days jail, $1,000, attorney fees) proper and allocable amidst the contempt ruling?	Taylor argues sanctions were warranted and properly awarded.	Taylor argues sanctions were excessive or improperly tied to contempt findings.	Contempt affirmed only to the extent supported by unchallenged findings; remanded for allocation; appeal fee denial still upheld.
Should the contempt ruling be reversed upon lack of willful noncompliance?	Taylor contends that the court correctly found noncompliance.	Taylor argues no willful noncompliance established for either payment or passport signature.	Contempt reversed due to lack of willful noncompliance; remand for fee allocation.

Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1988) (elements of contempt; burden to show willfulness beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. L.A., 245 P.3d 213 (Utah Ct.App. 2010) (preservation and adequacy of findings issues on appeal)
Thomas v. Thomas, 569 P.2d 1119 (Utah 1977) (prima facie case for contempt requires showing failure to comply)
Harding v. Bell, 57 P.3d 1093 (Utah 2002) (marshalling evidence; irrelevance when not challenged on appeal)
In re K.F., 201 P.3d 985 (Utah 2009) (preserving adequacy of findings; appellate preservation requirement)