Thomas v. Thomas
2021 UT App 8
| Utah Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Jeremy Thomas and Jody Tasker Thomas divorced in 2013; custody split by child (Jeremy primary for Son during school, Jody primary for Daughter; shared summers).
- The parties stipulated to appoint a special master using a “standard Special Master Order” that empowered the master to issue binding "directives" effective as orders unless modified by the court.
- Jody alleged Jeremy was alienating the children (derogatory talk, putting children in the middle, interfering with parent-time) and moved for an order to show cause; the special master issued multiple directives about therapy, communications, and exchanges.
- The district court found Jeremy in contempt in 2017 (stayed sanctions and set four purge conditions), held a subsequent evidentiary hearing in January 2019, found continued contempt based largely on alienation incidents, and imposed sanctions (attorney fees, special-master fees, counseling costs, supervised parent-time for Daughter and for Son unless conditions met, and two days jail to be served).
- The custody-change sanction for Son was stayed and later never implemented; the parties stipulated in July 2019 that custody would remain with Jeremy; Son reached majority in 2020. Jeremy appealed the January 10, 2019 Second Contempt Order.
Issues
| Issue | Thomas' Argument | Tasker (Jody)'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether special-master directives could be treated as court orders under Utah R. Civ. P. 53 and support contempt | District court erred: special-master "orders" were not court orders and could not be basis for contempt | The parties stipulated to an Order Appointing Special Master that made certain directives effective as orders; failures thus support contempt | Affirmed: directives were binding under the parties’ stipulation and Order Appointing Special Master and consistent with Rule 53 as applied in Wight |
| Whether Jeremy purged the prior contempt | He had complied sufficiently with purge conditions (therapy, releases, fees, progress) | He did not satisfy all four purge conditions, especially failed to make progress on alienation | Affirmed: court reasonably found contempt not purged based on extensive findings about ongoing alienation; failure on any purge condition sufficient |
| Whether additional contempt findings were supported | He should not be held in further contempt; some evidence inadmissible or pre-dated prior order | Substantial evidence (text messages, school/registration incident, adopted special-master findings) showed knowledge, ability, and willful refusal to comply | Affirmed: contempt elements (knowledge, ability, willful noncompliance) were satisfied; court’s credibility determinations and findings supported contempt |
| Whether change-of-custody and other sanctions were permissible | Change of custody was an improper sanction absent a pending modification petition; other sanctions excessive | Court acted within discretion; custody change was stayed and later moot; fees and supervised parent-time were supported | Custody-change sanction is moot (never implemented; child reached majority); other sanctions affirmed or not adequately challenged on appeal; remand for calculation of appellate fees to Jody |
Key Cases Cited
- Wight v. Wight, 268 P.3d 861 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (approving limited binding decision-making authority for special masters under a court order consistent with Rule 53)
- Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1988) (elements required to find contempt: knowledge, ability, intentional failure to comply)
- Chaparro v. Torero, 436 P.3d 339 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (a court may not avoid making best-interests findings by using custody change solely as a punitive sanction)
- Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (a party cannot take advantage of an error it invited at trial)
- Robertson’s Marine, Inc. v. I4 Solutions, Inc., 223 P.3d 1141 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (prevailing party awarded fees on appeal when awarded fees below)
- In re Adoption of B.Y., 356 P.3d 1215 (Utah 2015) (due process core: notice and opportunity to be heard)