Vanderzon v. Vanderzon
2017 UT App 150
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Heidi and John Vanderzon divorced after long-distance marriage; bifurcated decree entered in 2013 and final decree issued September 2014 resolving custody, alimony, and attorney fees.
- Custody evaluator recommended children relocate to Virginia and parents live within roughly a 45-minute drive; trial court awarded joint legal custody, designated Heidi primary caregiver, and ordered children to relocate to Virginia by Jan 1, 2015.
- The decree required Heidi, as the relocating parent, to live within 25 miles of John’s Virginia residence for the children to reside with her; if she was not within 25 miles when the children moved, custody would temporarily transfer to John until she relocated.
- The court relied heavily on the custody evaluator and transition specialist provisions to manage the move and stated the proximity requirement could be revisited if the transition specialist found it contrary to the children’s best interests.
- For alimony, the court imputed gross income to Heidi ($34,150/yr) based on a vocational expert, calculated John’s net income, then adopted calculations from John’s alimony expert to set total monthly support (~$10,000), ordering John to pay $6,400/month alimony (child support ~$3,613 already ordered).
- The court denied Heidi’s requests for attorney fees (including Sun Management discovery fees), finding the parties had substantial assets to fund litigation, both litigated unreasonably, and Heidi failed to follow the court’s fee-submission procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Heidi) | Defendant's Argument (John) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximity condition tying primary custody to living within 25 miles of John | The 25-mile requirement unlawfully infringes her constitutional rights to travel and to parent; court should allow a 45-mile radius or school-district tether | The requirement is a discretionary, best-interests custody decision tied to transition logistics and evaluator recommendations | Court did not abuse discretion; proximity requirement upheld as initial, flexible best-interests condition; Heidi failed to preserve constitutional challenge and plain-error standard not met |
| Alimony calculations and equalization | Court imputed too much income to Heidi, used gross vs. net inconsistently, failed to equalize shortfalls and consider tax consequences | Court reasonably imputed income based on vocational expert and used alimony expert schedules to equalize support | Court erred: remanded. Trial court plainly erred by equalizing incomes without reconciling its own needs findings, and by using Heidi’s gross but John’s net income; alimony award vacated for further proceedings |
| Income imputation methodology | Court failed to follow statutory imputation analysis, ignored childcare and special-needs exceptions, should have imputed minimum wage only | Court relied on vocational expert report and testimony addressing required factors; no evidence showed childcare costs or special needs precluded imputation | Court did not plainly err in imputing income to Heidi; vocational expert and testimony supported imputation and statutory exceptions were not shown by record |
| Attorney fees (Sun Management discovery) | Court abused discretion by denying fees tied to Sun Management discovery and misapplied fee factors/offset reasoning | Court found marital assets funded litigation, both parties litigated unreasonably, Heidi’s litigation conduct offset requested fees and she failed to comply with fee-submission procedure | Court did not abuse discretion; denial of fees affirmed (court considered need, ability to pay, and reasonableness in context of entire litigation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Grindstaff v. Grindstaff, 241 P.3d 365 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (appellate review of custody is for abuse of discretion and requires findings explaining best-interests basis)
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1999) (constitutional right to travel principles relied on by appellant, though not directly on point for intrastate custody decisions)
- Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1981) (travel and equal protection precedents cited in discussion of constitutional claims)
- Howell v. Howell, 806 P.2d 1209 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (equalization principle: exact mathematical equality not required; parity is required)
- Kidd v. Kidd, 321 P.3d 200 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (equalization of shortfall: courts should equitably share shortfalls when combined resources cannot meet both parties’ needs)