*1 court, presented was not to the district and it scope
exceeds the of our review of the dis
triсt court's petition dismissal of his for ex Therefore,
traordinary relief. we do not con
sider the claim further.
T6 The district court did not err in dis-
missing challenged because it
substance of the Board's decision and did not judicial
state a claim for According- review.
ly, we affirm.
2011UT 311 DAVIS, Petitioner, Appellee, Cross-appellant, DAVIS, Respondent, G. Appellant, Cross-appellee.
No. 20100238-CA. Appeals
Court of of Utah.
Sept.9,2011.
David Hartwig, R. City, Salt Lake Ap- pellant. Christensen,
Steve S. Thornton, Lisa B. Christopher Rogers, J. City, Salt Lake for Appellee. *3 DAVIS, Judges THORNE,
Before and CHRISTIANSEN.
OPINION DAVIS, Presiding Judge: ¶ Corey G. appeals Davis aspects several of the trial ruling on Lisa Davis's petition modify parties divorce decree. cross-appeals, challenging the ruling request on her for attor ney fees requesting appeal. fees on We affirm in part and part. reverse in
BACKGROUND ¶2 parties The were divorced a Decree 23, Divorce May entered Corey, gross whose monthly $7,000 income was per time, month at the pay ordered to $1,511 child support per month and was assigned a number of marital debts. provided decree also that Lisa would be entitled to claim youngest child for tax purposes, Corey would be entitled to child, claim the middle and thаt would (the alternate claiming the third child income provision). Furthermore, the de cree adopted provisions in accordance with 78B-12-212(8)-(9) Code, the Utah see (Supp.2 011),1 regarding pay ment of the children's health expenses, care which ordered that "[elach who incurs for the children pro shall vide written verification of the cost pay ment of medical expenses to the other within thirty days payment" provided "[alny party who comply fails to with the ... provision[ notice ] be denied right . recover parent's the other share of the expenses." ¶3 In October after losing job, filed a the decree. Lisa filed an answer and counterpetition modify in November 2002.
1. Where case, there have been no substantive amend- we cite the current version of the Utah ments that are relevant under the facts of this Code for the reader's convenience. January hearing on Following a ruled court The trial bankruptey. declared a substantial found that (the trial court in October petitions on the in that had occurred change of cireumstances modification). found court The trial materially [Corey] has bankruptey "the October job between of a Corey was out [Lisa]": financial condition affected his new 2008 and and October [Corey] has declared finds This court re-employed becoming upon by virtue of found that The trial $5,026 month. per are now filing, creditors in Co 29% approximately the decrease [Lisal.... recover funds seeking to signifi "a constituted monthly income rey's pro- decree the initial finds that The court change of cireumstances material cant for certain [Corey] vided that reviewing the justifying [clourt ... those debts finds that The court debts. The trial obligations." ... *4 therefore The court paid. have not been a dis "received Corey had that found also right bankruptey was a although finds that to the debts regard bankruptey charge in invoke, by so that [Corey] 'and did сould pay under to ordered obligations he was effectively [Lisa] taken from doing he has no but made Divoree" Decree of arriving at the bargain in benefit of The trial discharge. that the effect as to of the forms the basis stipulation per wage of $940 imputed minimum court original decree. Corey's that determined Lisa and to month the trial court change, of this As a result reduced should be child (the modifica the decree again modified month, to October retroactive $1,174 per tion) "should be that Lisa determined fact that of the recognition In exemptions for all tax all the to claim able contributor financial primary "the children," acknowledging that this children," court raising the cost sought" by Lisa for remedy "only provision so tax the income modified The trial debts. pay the marital failure to child youngest would claim that Corey parties['] incomes "that the found court also child.2 the middle claim Lisa would and, basis on the significantly" changed рeti filed a new Lisa incomes, March In child increased new parties' of the $1,287 per changes in $1,174 per modify, alleging month several tion (1) a result as Next, that "is circumstances: found the trial court month. that longer paying the Corey was no did bankruptey, arisen that expenses have sues of school (2) decree, and, in the divorce entered" as ordered decree was debts when the not exist affect negatively "to had been decree credit the divorcee accordingly, that Lisa's modified (8) debts, pay the one Corey's failure to for by [Corey] [Lisa] to reimburse ed require expenses for Fur expenses." new incurred Lisa had school half of reasonable (4) fees, thermore, that claims and school court stated activities the children to claim of medical greater need had a for reimbursement Lisa Corey, claiming reim than purposes if the for tax be waived dependents thir proof home. within (5) purchase a wanted to failed that Lisa bursement incurred but modifying the in been the bill had ty days an order requested Lisa unnecessary all her to claim permit it would provision to tax come actually paid requiring bill had purposes; for tax show children Finally, the reimbursement. extra to receive the children's order pay for half of Corey to attorney fees; request for denied Lisa's curricular, and test trial court registration, school modifi the trial court's Corey appeals attorney fees. fees.3 pay her ordering adjust its provision, of the income amended cation filed an November regarding support, its child in ment of an increase modify, requesting petition to regarding its orders expenses, and support. rulings additional modified, made several by 3. The trial again decree was
2. The appeal. challenged on have not been modification, which but stipulation, Corey's alimo- the discontinuation concerned analysis. to our ny obligation, nоt relevant medical reimbursement. cross-appeals requested the modification. "We review the attorney court's decision on fees and trial legal regarding determinations requests appeal. fees on party]'s [a entitlement modi fication for Doyle correctness." Doyle,
ISSUES AND STANDARDS
306, ¶ 9,
2009UT
sider occurring circumstances affected."). support is parent whose modification.8 the time at the gument ar cither preserve Corey failed to modifi reverse therefore We court, he although trial in the provision. gument tax inсome the cation reply in his argue plain error to attempted Support II. Child for raised brief, matters will not consider "we brief," ex reply Coleman in the first time the ¶14 contends Corey next Stevens, v. child rel. adjusting his by court erred trial Schefski plain error a (declining to address less increase was obligation when support in the time for the first Code Ann. raised generally See 10%. than Utah (2008) 78B-12-210(8) a trial (providingthat brief).9 § reply with support award may adjust a child court circumstances change of a substantial out Expenses III. School modi the last elapsed since have years three challenges trial also previ between difference and the fication half of the he court's order least is at new award ous award expenses. We school reasonable trial court 10%). He "private explained previously have retroactive modification making the erred child parcel of the part and are costs modify, to petitiоn Lisa's 2008 time of Brooks, 881 P.2d award." Brooks support 4, 2008, despite the April filed on (analyzinga Ct.App.1994) n. 959 3 support a child request her fact private an award modification until she submit made was not modification sup the child modification of as a modify in No amended ted Arnold, 2008 award); also Arnold see port § T8B-12- id. generally 2009. See vember ¶ (reaffirming the 17, 10, 177P.3d 89 112(4) ("If [child] orders the tribunal for a district appropriate that "it is rule modified, date the effective be support private school award court follow the month shall the modification can conceive support"). We addition to pleading] on ing [of service children). $1,551 obligation for three tax adjustment of the income note that We also comprises Corey's income 83% discharg- Corey's Because remedy for odd provision is an income, obligation debts, under the old his parties' total partic- marital obligation ing month, the amount $1,287 the bulk out to ularly given carries table comes per table, new Under the the trial court. likely awarded and Lisa obligation would have parties' combined generally Utah See tax burden. much smaller $1,630 children 83% for three been (2008) (stating that al- § Ann. 78B-12-217 Code significant dis- month. maintains $1,353 though would have per share 78B-12-301(2) (providing that exemptions, in tax allocate the cretion "(a) so, $7,600 as the expected consider $7,501 doing between it is combined obligation of in a combined results each relative contribution factor, primary child; (b) children). raising that had This means parent the cost $1,630 for three table, there the new benefit followed relative among factors, difference more than 10% have been parent"). each $1,174 per month previous award of between Al- month. $1,353 new award per and the *8 the trial we note that Nevertheless, ap- 9. appeals court's use though neither support table employed child the old parently table, observe it relevant we think the old employed new table hаve when it should should Corey's argument the trial court That 78B-12-301. section in Utah Code outlined if support, even the child have modified not which was table, new section provides a result 2008, succeeded as "modify have could used to be in created preserved, employing the in second error trial court's on or before support entered order final child support. Further- child to calculate 2007, table 31, old made is if the modification December more, assuming Corey correct that is thai even Ann. Utah Code 1, 2010." after on or January increasing retroactively by (2008). court erred 78B-12-301(2)(d) in The modification § 4, April support between child February his 2008, 2010. Under in was made this case 23, 2009, damage Corey November table, and income Corey Lisa's combined and old by mitigated alleged error is support from $7,521 suffered child an overall per month merits support, since paid less child he has $1,551 fact that per three chil- month for obligation of (2002) re- § 23, 2009, than should Ann. 78-45-7.14 Utah Code November See dren. error second trial court's quired result of the as a between (providing that a combined support using table. child $7,600 in the old $7,501 child in a combined results why public of no reason school fees should expenses be school in support, addition to child categorized any differently. There is noth expressly reaffirmed the rule that "it is not ing about school fees that makes them differ appropriate for a district court pri to award any expenses ent from that must be expenses vate school in sup addition to child satisfied, all, at out of the com port" but enforced the order because it was support obligations. bined child Depart the result of voluntary stipula Cf. father's ment Human Servs. ex rel. Parker v. 17, ¶ 10, tion. App See 2008UT 177P.3d 89. 1997)(Dur Irizarry, 945 P.2d The Arnold court correctly observed that ham, J., ("'The dissenting) neighborhood "requiring agreed- shared in, live safety [children] comfort and upon private expenses is well within their transportation arrangements, the discretion of the district court." Id. 110 they attend, schools the educational enrich added).10 2 (emphasis n. The instant case is (music, opportunities dance, art, ment distinguishable agreed never lessons) have, sports they the travel and pay for school fees on top regular of his aspects recreational of their lives ...-all support child obligation. things these dependent are on the total ¶ 17 Our conclusionthat schoolfees should amount of income sup available for their paid be out of support child supported by is port."). If support child inadequate is the fact that legislature singled has out expenses cover parents wish to incur on be specific two types expenses children, parents school, half of their private such as are pay ordered to in activities, or, addition case, regu extracurricular to their inas this lar support child tests, obligations: placement аdvanced there work-related nothing is prevent parents expenses, care agreeing from see share such § (2008), additional 78B-12-214 in the interest of their the children's med expenses, ical § However, see id. children. (Supp. things 78B-12-212 these are not ne 2011). generally cessities and must budgeted This convinces us that legis had the part of child support if the lature cannot intended parents be ordered to agree otherwise. pay categories additional expenses, such as activities, fees or extracurricular in previous that this court's exeess of child support, it would have enacted decisions in Anderson v. Thompson, 2008 UT legislation Thus, to that effect. child-rearing Arnold, P.3d and Arnold v. statutorily not distinguished from App 17, 2008 UT 177 P.3d stand for the regular should be proposition considered that a trial make a "part parcel separate award." order for a pay for school Brooks, See at 959 n. Accordingly, fees addition to child support. court's order that pay reliance half misplaced. these cases is children's school fees is a deviation issue in Anderson was whether mother the child guidelines, had right waived the to enforce see Utah Code (5)(a) ("If § 78B-12-210(5), Ann. the amount order that the father half the cost of the children's the order extracurricular activi and the guide amount on the ¶¶3, ties. 3, 13, lines worksheet differ or more ... $10 464. The propriety of the order ...."), itself was considered deviated issue, fact, not at and in supported the father must be had "specific finding on apparently agreed to take on the additional the record supporting the conclusion that ... obligation. court, See id. 13. The Arnold guidelines use of the unjust, would be inap which did specifically uphold an propriate, order that a or the best interest of [the] father for half of his private child[ren]," 78B-12-210(8); id. accord *9 "upheld" Misleadingly, 10. a trial court's order that a father con- this observation quoted her brief but qualifying рhrase left out the tribute to the cost of extracurricular activities "agreed-upon" indicating without the omission. and school costs, see id. it did so on the para. similarly misrepresents She holding ground this court's inadequately that the father briefed his Costa, 104U, Gillette v. evidence; 2007 WL and failed to marshal the (mem.) curiam), (per 858711 by asserting that it the arguments merits of the father's were never supports argument. her reached, While the actually Gilfefte court paras. see id. 3-4.
529
omitted)).
marks
internal
tion and
of
the absence
Brooks,
at 960.
881
Corey pay for
that
resulting
order
trial court's
The
amounts
award
finding, "the
a
such
expenses
is
... are
of the
guidelines
half
of the
application
the
from
Ann.
Code
reversed.
Utah
therefore
correct."
to be
presumed
TBB-12-210(@)(b).11
only
found
Reimbursement
¶
this case
Medical
trial court
IV.
The
18
did
that
have arisen
expenses
"school
that
the
Corey argues that
Finally,
entered."
the decree
when
exist
not
relieving
of her
by
erred
trial court
of
any number
of
be true
finding could
This
him with
provide
obligation to
statutory
ex
the children's
that
fact
The
expenses.
medical
actually paid the
has
she
proof that
does
increased
changed or even
have
penses
Corey to reimburse
she wants
expenses
of child
modification
justify a
necessarily
not
modification,
In the
for.
guidelines,
the
from
deviates
support
that
seeking reimbursement
a
that
stated
are
new
the
when
particularly
actually been
has
that the bill
not show
"need
Brooks,
P.2d at
ordinary.
out of the
Cf.
expense
that the
only show
need
paid, but
changes in
"[slignificant
that
(suggesting
this
Corey argues that
incurred."
has been
child, such
the
factual cireumstances
decree,
original
departure
a
is
which,
needs,
if
or health
special education
as
incurs
party who
"Each
provided,
which
original decree
time of the
at the
in existence
pro
children shall
expenses for the
medical
upward deviаtion
an
permitted
have
pay
of the cost
verification
written
vide
a sub
may constitute
guidelines"
from the
within
expenses to the other
medical
ment
justifying a
cireamstances
change of
stantial
added.)
(Emphasis
payment."
thirty days of
modification). Moreover,
court's
con
is
this modification
argues that
He also
accompanied
is not
in this case
modification
law,
"[al
mandates
trary
to Utah
by Utah
required
finding, as
specific
by a
shall
medical
who incurs
parent
inappropriate,
"unjust,
law,
be
it would
of the cost
verification
written
provide
child[ren]"
[the]
interest
in the best
or not
Code
Utah
expenses,"
of medical
payment
guide
support
statutory child
employ
78B-12-212(8)
(emphases
(Supp.2011)
§Ann.
78B-12-112(8).
§Ann.
Code
lines. See
provi
added).
this new
extent
To the
Rasband, 752 P.2d
Rasband
generally
completely reliev
("[A
as
may
interpreted
trial
sion
Ct.App.1988)
1331, 1334
statutory obligation to
their
ing
parties of
show that
fact must
findings of
eourt's]
one another
proof
lоgically
follows
or decree
judgment
expenses for
they incur
when
evidence.
by,
from,
supported
However, we
children,
Corey.
agree
we
sufficiently detailed
findings should be
much a
not so
provision
this
interpret
subsidiary
to dis
facts
enough
and include
by
a statement
the decree as
modification
conclu
the ultimate
by which
steps
close the
must
reimbursement
(cita
clarifying that
the court
was reached."
issue
factual
on each
sion
bankruptcy.
To the
as a result
Nevertheless,
agree
fered
a
implied
contrary,
trial court
guidelines even
of the
in excess
finding
effects of
specific
the financial
remedy
not make
based
does
trial court
stipula
warranted
bankruptcy
deviation is
modification
was the
such
above,
binding
Moreover,
effect
all the
parties "has
tion
as noted
provision.
tax
made
of law
conclusions
fact and
finding"
"specific
any
make
failed to
Davis,
Davis v.
upon the evidence."
the cоurt
guidelines
"use of the
made
(internal
in the best inter-
inappropriate, or not
unjust,
...
omitted).
stipulation
"[The
quotation marks
child,"
§ 78B-12-
see Utah
est of
parties
all
agreement an
constitutes
provi-
112(3) (2008).
with the income
And as
pre-existed
...
necessary
the facts
of circumstances
sion,
any
evidence,
by available
be sustained
and would
jus-
might
have
arising from the
dispensed
agreement of the
not the
had
guide-
from the child
a deviation
tified
(omission in
taking
Id.
evidence."
with the
in the
been addressed
lines should
omitted).
(internal quotation marks
original)
previously
support was
when child
supra 112.
modified.
CL
12. Lisa asserts
she suf-
remedy
"financial strain"
also a
*10
proof
be made with or
payment,
without
right
denied the
to ...
recover
the other
entirely
which is
consistent with the statute.
parent's share of
expenses
parent
if that
[provide
fails to
(emphasis
verification]."
add
interpretation
Our
is consistent with
ed)).
reject Corey's
We
assertion that "a
the trial court's asserted intent
in clarifying
right
to
reimbursement
arises
[a
after
provision.
medical reimbursement
It is
parent] provides
proof
incurring,
transcript
clear from the
of the hearing that
paying, the bill
parent]."
[to the other
the court desired not
to
Utah Code does not condition
statutory obligations but to find a means for
pay
to
payment. Rather,
verification of
encouraging
to be reasonable in
notes,
as Lisa
the obligation
provide
to
verifi
approaching the reimbursement
issue. The
cation is
independent
"an
duty" that
is not a
explained,
mandatory
reimbursement,
condition of
al
you
you've
If
think
enough,
sent
and he
though failure to comply with the condition
it,
paid
you
hasn't
then what
need to do is
may, in
discretion,
the trial court's
be remed
an order to show cause to the commission-
ied
a denial of reimbursement. While
saying,
gave
er
I
enough
him
documenta-
Lisa risks sanctions or
possibility
you
tion....
[I]f
cause him to come out
may
she
be denied reimbursеment
if she fails
it,
here
fight
and the commissioner
provide proof
to
payment,
Corey also
agrees
risks
with
you
him that
give
didn't
sanctions if he
pay
refuses to
without receiv
documentation,
enough
then [the commis-
ing proof
payment,
particularly if there is
may
sioner]
assess
against
a sanction
you.
nothing to indicate that the bill has not been
On
you
the other
get
hand if
documenta-
Thus,
paid.
it was
beyond
not
you
tion and
say its not enough, and she
court's discretion to declare
would
you
hauls
into the
say
commissioner
to
obligated
to reimburse Lisa for the chil
[you]
pay,
and the commissioner
dren's
medical
spite
of her fail
agrees that the documentation
enough.
provide
ure to
proof payment.13
Just
you
the fact that
didn't
think it was
it,
going
isn't
to cut
and he's
only going
not
V.
Fees in
the Trial
Court
you
bill,
to make
Attorney
may
but he
award a
you
sanction for
paying
it. So
¶22 On cross-appeal,
saying
what I'm
is we all need to be rea-
that the trial court failed to mаke necessary
sonable about
says
this.
If he
I need more
findings to justify its denial
request
of her
documentation and
going
{fit's] not
to kill
attorney
30-83-38,
fees. Utah Code section
you
give
him,
it [to]
give
then
it to him.
governs
attorney
awards of
fees in
On the other hand if
giving you
she's
plen-
cases,
divorce
provides "the court
ty-the point is it
just
can't be
you
party
order a
attorney
costs[ and]
feel like it....
just
You
your
to do
fees ... of the
other
to enable the
get along
best to
provide
the documen-
prosecute
or defend the ac
tation.
tion." Utah
§
(Supp.
30-38-38
¶21 While it
2011).
beyond
have been
"[To recover costs and attorney fees
scope of the trial court's discretion to at
in proceedings
on a
tempt to exeuse Lisa's statutory obligation
decree,
divorcee
the requesting party must
provide proof
altogether,
demonstrate his or her
attorney
need for
court retains discretion to
fees,
parent
one
the ability of
sрouse
the other
pay,
to reimburse the other for
and the reasonableness of the fees." Larson
incurred even when
parent
incurring
Larson,
Ct.App.
expenses has
comply
failed to
1994).
with his or her
The trial court in this case declined to
statutory obligation
provide
verification of
award
requested
Lisa her
attorney fees be
payment.
78B-12-212(9)
("[A]
See id.
cause it concluded that "[the
evidence at
parent
incurring medical expenses may be
trial was insufficient
for [it] to determine
13. We reiterate,
deny
cretion to
however,
that Lisa is still
reimbursement
in the future if
statu-
torily obligated
proof
fulfilling
she
duty.
is derelict in
payment and that the trial court retains its dis-
*11
any
to make
failed
the trial court
Because
the
...,
whether
specifically,
attorney fees
from the
findings justifying
deviation
issues
to the
attorney
are related
fees
the trial
reverse
we
guidelines,
Lisa
here."
adjudicated
have
half of the
Corey pay
order
court's
sufficient
wаs
evidence
the
in addition to
children's
How
attorney fees.
of
award
an
supported
order
trial court's
the
We affirm
support.
... an award
make
ever,
to
decision
"[the
medical
for
reimbursement
right
to
thereof
amount
and the
attorney fees]
[of
receiving proof
contingent on
is not
discretion
in the sound
primarily
rests]
statu
clarify
parties'
but
payment
Bell,
Bell
court."
one another
to
tory obligation
Although
evi
some
Ct.App.1991).
Finally,
in force.
remains
proof of
was
factors
the relevant
relating to
dence
of Lisa's
denial
the trial court's
affirm
we
informa
hearing-primarily
at
presented
fees,
deny her
attorney
and we
request
for
their
incomes and
relating to
tion
appeal.
fees on
request for
at
needs,
Lisa's
from
invoices
monthly
minimal,
we
was
torney-this
evidence
M.
MICHELE
125 I CONCUR:
abuse of
a clear
it was
say that
cannot
CHRISTIANSEN, Judge.
to address
decline
to
discretion
court's
trial
that the
ground
on the
attorney fee issue
THORNE,
(concurring and
Judge
make
for it
to
insufficient
was
evidence
dissenting):
determination.
II, IV, V,
¶
and VI
agree
I
with sections
Appeal
Attorney
on
therein.
Fees
concur
majority opinion and
VI.
majority's
However,
agree with the
I cannot
¶23
her attor
requests
the dis
judicata barred
that res
conclusions
"Generally, when
appeal.
ney
on
fees
considering the effects
trict court
awarded]
[or
court awards
Corey
Lisa and
Corey's bankruptey on
who
to
action
in a domestic
fees
pay half of the
to
improperly ordered
was
appeal, fees
on
substantially prevails
then
Nei
expenses.
reasonable
appeal."
on
be awarded
will also
pre
adequately
these issues
ther of
Kimball,
Kimball
court,
our
precluding
in the district
served
(internal
omit
quotation marks
modified Corey has expenses issue because the school cireumstances, i.e., bankruptey, occurred specific issues preserve these failed time, trial court's we reverse to that prior requirements set preservation The appeal.1 provision. clear: Court are Supreme by the Utah out affirm we appeal{,] preserve an issue pre [In Corey failed support order presented be must the issue order. relating to that arguments servе objection this state- raised no curred." problems with Co- preservation There direct example, as no time did For Further, at arguments well. ment. rey's see- language Utah Code issue, to the district expenses reimbursement medical verification regarding "written hearing, tion 78B-12-212 Corey at informed district expenses." payment of the cost you, pay half has obligation, both of "Your 78B-12-212(8) (Supp. Ann. Utah Code being paid. actually nothing bill do with the 2011). being in- bill from the arises way court in (internal such a that the trial court has original) alteration *12 opportunity omitted)). an to rule on that issue. This light marks In Corey's of failure requirement puts judge on notice preserve issues, these I would decline to of the asserted error and allows for However, correc- address them. majority the opin tion at in time the course of the ion does reach issues, the substance of these proceeding. For a trial court to be afford- and in each case reaches what I believe to be opportunity (1) ed an to correct the error an incorrect conclusion. the issue timely must be raised in a fash- ¶30 majority applies general the rule ion[,] (2) the issue specifically must be judicata of res to the district finding court's (8) raised[,] and challengingparty the must of changed cireumstances based on the sub supporting introduce evidence or relevant sequent Corey's effects of bankruptcy. 2003 legal authority. Issues that are not raised However, light in of the district court's "con at usually trial are deemed waived. tinuing jurisdiction child support Heat, Inc., Easy Main St. v. 72, 2004 UT
438
obligations,"
Durfee,
v.
796 P.2d
Durfee
(Utah
(alterations
99 P.3d
in original)
Ct.App.1990),a
peti
(citations and
quotation
internal
marks omit
tion
satisfy
need not
the normal rules of res
ted). Here, Corey did not raise the
judicata.
Rather,
relevant
petitioner
only
need
issues
specificity,
with
nor did
he
showing
make "a
of a
change
substantial
of
arguments with
legal authority.
relevant
circumstances occurring
entry
since the
¶28
the decree and not contemplated in
issue,
the de
judicata
As
the
agree
res
I
added) (internal
cree
(emphasis
itself."
Id.
with
majority
the
generally
raised
omitted);
marks
see
Bolliger
also
concept
judicata
the
of res
below
assert
Bolliger,
App
¶¶ 11-13,
2000 UT
ing
that his bankruptcy had been discussed
P.2d 903.2
ruled on in the 2005 trial.
the
district
quite
court made
"The fact
clear
that the
that it was
have antici-
relying
pated
[a
on the fact that
the
bankruptey
change
material
in
had occurred but rather
in
circumstances]
on the
their own
effects of the
minds or in
bankruptey
their
finances,
on Lisa's
discussions does
effects
not mean
the
[prior
occurred
order]
the
itself
contemplates
2005 trial.
the
after
change.
never alerted the
In
any
district court to
order for a
argu
change
material
cireumstances to be
ment
in a
consequences
the future
contemplated
were
order,]
fixed at
[child
the time of the 2005 trial and
there
there
must be evi-
dence,
fore could
preferably
have and should
fully
provision
have been
the form of a
fairly
litigated
itself,
within
at
the decree
that earlier
time.
the trial court
anticipated
specific
change."
¶29 Corey's
expenses
¶
Bolliger,
47, 13,
2000 UT
similarly
unpreserved.
Corey never in
(first
in original)
alteration
(quoting Durfee,
formed the district court
that an award of
716).
796 P.2d at
"Accordingly,
both
expenses
constituted an increase in
[prior order] and the record
any
are bereft
Brooks,
under Brooks v.
reference to the changed
P.2d 955
cireumstance at
Ct.App.1994),nor did he ob
issue in
modify,
then the
ject
the district court's failure to enter
subsequent
changed
specific
cireumstance
findings
was not
justifying
departure
its
contemplated in
[prior
order]."
the child
Id.
support guidelines,
generally
see
K.F.,
¶4, 60,
("[A
re
issues. I concur the remainder of the
majority opinion.
2011UT 307 POLL,
Sandra Appellee, Petitioner POLL, Respondent
James Cook *14 Appellant.
No. 20100765-CA. Appeals
Court of of Utah.
Sept. Howell, Provo,
Matthew R. Appellant. Young Brent D. and Dallas B. Young, Pro- vo, Appellee. Judges THORNE,
Before VOROS, and ROTH.
OPINION THORNE, Judge: T1 Respondent (Hus- James Cook Poll band) appeals from the trial supple- mental findings of fact and conclusions of law and the supplemental decree of divorce awarding property parties purchased during the marriage to Petitioner Sandra (Wife) Poll separate property. We affirm.
BACKGROUND T2 parties were married April 2005. Prior to marriage, Wife had re- ceived money from various sources after her first husband died in the September 11 at- tack on the World Trade Center. Wife placed a portion of those funds (Trust Account). trust account in her name May T3 On signed a Real Contract, Estate Purchase desig- nated James C. and Sandra purchas- Poll as property (the ers of County Wasatch