Wight v. Wight
2011 UT App 424
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Husband Wight and Wife married in 2001; they have a daughter (2002) and a son (2004).
- Wife moved out with the children in August 2005; divorce proceedings followed with temporary orders in 2006.
- Husband was ordered to pay the mortgage on the marital home despite moving closer to Wife and the children.
- A key dispute centered on day care; Wife used Adventure Time after becoming employed in 2006; Husband’s job loss in 2007 affected his contributions.
- The parties stipu lated to joint legal custody and a shared parent-time schedule in March 2008; a partial financial stipulation followed in April 2009.
- The trial court issued the Third Amended Order in 2010 addressing, among other things, the carpet allowance, day care costs, and property division; a remand was ordered regarding the carpet allowance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of ACAFS for parent-time exchanges | Husband argues ACAFS should be discontinued. | Court found ongoing emotional issues justify ACAFS. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in continuing ACAFS. |
| Appointment of a Special Master for parent time | Stipulation did not authorize a master for parent time. | Stipulation allowed a master for resolving parent-time disputes. | Appointment of special master affirmed; powers properly limited under Rule 53/58. |
| Day-care costs and ethical offset | Husband should reimburse more for day-care costs and be more flexible. | Trial court properly awarded $5,000 with appropriate considerations. | Day-care award upheld; offset findings affirmed. |
| Right of first refusal (ROFR) duration | ROFR should trigger only for longer surrogate care periods. | Court may adjust ROFR duration to limit frequent transitions. | Court’s ROFR scope and duration within discretion; affirmed. |
| Carpet allowance and marital assets | Carpet allowance should be shared; amounts allocated should be clarified. | Distribution and credits should reflect trial findings; some inconsistency noted. | Remand for clarification of carpet-allowance allocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arnold v. Arnold, 177 P.3d 89 (2008 UT App) (detailed findings required when awarding attorney fees)
- Stonehocker v. Stonehocker, 176 P.3d 476 (2008 UT App) (broad discretionary standard in property division)
- Trubetzkoy v. Trubetzkoy, 205 P.3d 891 (2009 UT App) (abuse of discretion standard for visitation decisions)
- Childs v. Childs, 967 P.2d 942 (1998 UT App) (trial court’s use of a master and scheduling considerations)
- Martinez v. Media-Paymaster Plus/Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 164 P.3d 884 (2007 UT) (standards for appellate review of factual findings)
- Connell v. Connell, 233 P.3d 836 (2010 UT App) (detailing fee-award standards and necessity of findings)
- West Valley City v. Majestic Inv. Co., 818 P.2d 1311 (1991 UT App) (statutory interpretation and review of civil decisions)
- American Interstate Mortg. Corp. v. Edwards, 41 P.3d 1142 (2002 UT App) (mastery of procedural authority and scope of powers)
- Finlayson v. Finlayson, 874 P.2d 848 (1994 UT App) (award of fees under enforcement provisions)
- Kimball v. Kimball, 217 P.3d 738 (2009 UT App) (appeals on fee awards in domestic actions)