549 P.3d 65
Utah Ct. App.2024Background
- Michael Tilleman (Father) and Michal Tilleman (Mother) divorced after a highly contentious marriage; they share one minor child.
- The trial court awarded sole legal custody to Mother and joint physical custody, designating Mother as primary physical custodian with Father receiving frequent parent time.
- The trial court imputed federal minimum wage to Mother for child support, despite evidence she could earn more, and awarded her over $161,000 in attorney fees and costs.
- Both parties accused each other of abuse and mental health issues, with multiple reports filed by Father against Mother, all of which were unsubstantiated by authorities.
- Father appealed the legal custody award, the child support calculation, and the attorney fee award, arguing the trial court misapplied statutory standards and failed to properly weigh the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of statutory custody factors | Trial court failed to consider all required statutory custody factors for joint custody. | Court had discretion regarding which custody factors to consider. | Court must consider all statutory factors for joint custody; reversed. |
| Findings of emotional abuse | Emotional abuse finding against Father not supported by evidence. | Father’s multiple abuse reports traumatized Child and were vexatious. | Sufficient evidence supported limited findings; affirmed. |
| Imputation of Mother’s income | The court erred by imputing only minimum wage when higher earning potential was shown. | Insufficient evidence about current job opportunities justified minimum wage imputation. | Court misapplied law; remanded for recalculation consistent with evidence. |
| Attorney fees and costs | Trial court used the wrong standard and didn’t make necessary findings re: ability to pay. | Fees award was appropriate as Mother prevailed and Father had greater ability to pay. | Court conflated standards/failed to make key findings; reversed/ remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKitrick v. Gibson, 2024 UT 1 (statutes are interpreted based on their plain language to ascertain legislative intent)
- Taghipour v. Jerez, 2002 UT 74 (when statutes conflict, the more specific governs)
- Twitchell v. Twitchell, 2022 UT App 49 (trial courts must consider all best interest factors in custody modifications)
- Connell v. Connell, 2010 UT App 139 (attorney fees under Utah Code § 30-3-3 require specific findings and application of the fee provision standards)
- Tucker v. Tucker, 910 P.2d 1209 (Utah 1996) (no need to find a parent unfit before awarding custody to another)