Widdison v. Kirkham, 2018 UT App 205

Background

Husband filed a 2011 petition to modify child support seeking the child tax exemption for the parties' youngest child, reevaluation of the child's health insurance, and enforcement of parent-time provisions. The trial court granted relief in a 2012 Order and awarded Husband attorney fees for substantially prevailing.
Wife appealed; this court vacated the attorney-fee award and remanded for further findings about tax consequences of amending returns for 2009–2011 and other issues.
On remand the court found the 2009–2011 tax-exemption dispute had been resolved pretrial, reinstated the attorney-fee award, found Wife in contempt for refusing to sign tax documents, and denied Wife's motions for new trial and amendment.
Wife appealed the remand orders challenging: (1) the shift of the tax exemptions to Husband for 2009–2012, (2) the contempt finding for refusing to sign amended returns, and (3) the award of attorney fees to Husband.
This court affirmed the trial court's findings on the tax-exemption issue and the contempt finding, but remanded to limit and recalculate the attorney-fee award to fees incurred enforcing parent-time and to fees awarded as a contempt sanction.

Issues

Issue	Wife's Argument	Husband's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in shifting child tax exemptions (2009–2012) to Husband	The court failed to follow remand instructions to make findings about IRS audit/fines and harm from amended returns; Wife should retain exemptions	Parties had resolved 2009–2011 pretrial; Wife produced no evidence of financial harm; allocation for 2012 unchanged from original order	Affirmed — court properly found the prior years resolved, Wife failed to marshal evidence to show error or harm
Whether Wife’s refusal to sign amended tax returns justified contempt sanction	Wife claimed she was willing to sign but was not given opportunity; signing could have violated federal law	Wife repeatedly refused to sign despite multiple opportunities and court orders; court signed for her after refusal	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence that Wife knew requirement, could comply, and intentionally refused
Whether trial court exceeded remand scope in awarding attorney fees to Husband	Wife argued fee award exceeded scope and earlier opinion vacated fee award	Husband argued fees were proper because he substantially prevailed on parent-time enforcement and contempt (statutory bases)	Partly affirmed and remanded — fees are proper only for (a) fees attributable to enforcing parent-time under Utah Code §30-3-3(2) and (b) fees as contempt sanction; trial court must recalculate and limit award
Whether appellate fees should be awarded	Wife sought fees for partial merits; argued she prevailed on some issues	Husband sought appellate fees based on fee awards below	Denied — neither party is entitled to appellate fees for this appeal; remanded fee award limited to parent-time enforcement and contempt fees

Key Cases Cited

Wilson Supply, Inc. v. Fradan Mfg. Corp., 54 P.3d 1177 (Utah 2002) (standard for clear-error review of factual findings)
In re Discipline of LaJeunesse, 416 P.3d 1122 (Utah 2018) (appellant must marshal and respond to evidence supporting trial findings)
State v. Nielsen, 326 P.3d 645 (Utah 2014) (discussion of marshaling evidence requirement)
Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162 (Utah 1988) (elements and burden of proof for civil contempt)
Connell v. Connell, 233 P.3d 836 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (attorney-fee awards in family cases require consideration of need, ability to pay, and reasonableness)
Bilanzich v. Lonetti, 160 P.3d 1041 (Utah 2007) (attorney fees generally allowed only by contract or statute)
Tobler v. Tobler, 337 P.3d 296 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (ordinary practice regarding appellate fee awards when fees are awarded below)
Goggin v. Goggin, 299 P.3d 1079 (Utah 2013) (contempt sanctions may include attorney fees)
Allen v. Ciokewicz, 280 P.3d 425 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for fee awards in divorce proceedings)