Volk v. Vecchi, 467 P.3d 872

Volk and Vecchi lived together from 1999 (mostly in California), had two children, and pooled finances and assets (joint bank accounts, joint loans, jointly titled real property). They moved to Utah in 2012.
The couple separated in March 2015; Volk filed for divorce in November 2015 asserting a common‑law marriage for the period they lived in Utah (~30 months) and seeking equitable division, child support, and alimony.
The district court ordered a custody evaluation (initially requiring Vecchi to pay; final allocation reserved) and later held a bench trial.
The district court found Volk met the statutory elements for a common‑law marriage in Utah (including consent and a uniform/general reputation) for the Utah residency period, awarded thirty months of alimony and equitable division, and ordered each party to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.
Vecchi appealed, arguing (1) Volk failed to prove elements of common‑law marriage (particularly uniform/general reputation and consent) and (2) the court erred by not ordering that custody‑evaluation costs be split equally.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Volk)	Defendant's Argument (Vecchi)	Held
Whether Volk proved a common‑law marriage in Utah (elements including cohabitation, consent, assumption of marital duties, and acquisition of a uniform and general reputation)	Volk: long cohabitation in Utah, joint finances/property, filings and documents showing them as married, introductions/representations to third parties — all demonstrate consent and a community reputation of marriage	Vecchi: some witnesses knew they never formally married and he refused proposals to marry; these facts undermine uniform reputation and consent	Affirmed: district court’s factual findings (uniform/general reputation and consent) were not clearly erroneous and its application of the statute was not an abuse of discretion; common‑law marriage established for Utah residency period
Allocation of custody‑evaluation costs	Volk: (implicitly) the court’s order that each party bear own costs is fair; no timely objection to specific findings	Vecchi: both benefited from the evaluation and costs should be shared equally; court failed to make a specific allocation	Affirmed (on waiver): appellate court treats the specific challenge as waived because Vecchi failed to seek specific findings or preserve the issue below; court’s general order that each pay own costs sufficed

Whyte v. Blair, 885 P.2d 791 (Utah 1994) (describes statutory/element analysis for common‑law marriage and consent to assume marital responsibilities)
Hansen v. Hansen, 958 P.2d 931 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (addresses consent and evidentiary proof for common‑law marriage)
Clark v. Clark, 27 P.3d 538 (Utah 2001) (standard of review and evidence supporting a uniform/general reputation)
Rivet v. Hoppie, 460 P.3d 1054 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (noting that a partial or divided reputation is insufficient to prove uniform/general reputation)
Penunuri v. Sundance Partners, 423 P.3d 1150 (Utah 2017) (standard of review for district court's award/denial of costs and fees)
438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (issues challenging adequacy of trial court findings must be raised below or are waived)