RYAN MILLER, Appellant, v. BRENDA MILLER, Appellee.
No. 20190748-CA
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
Filed December 24, 2020
2020 UT App 171
Second District Court, Farmington Department
The Honorable Michael Edwards
No. 134701192
Jonathan Hibshman, Marco Brown, and Rodney R. Parker, Attorneys for Appellant
Dustin D. Gibb, Attorney for Appellee
JUDGE KATE APPLEBY authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES JILL M. POHLMAN and DIANA HAGEN concurred.
¶1 Ryan Miller appeals the district court‘s dismissal of his petition to modify the parties’ divorce decree. Ryan‘s1 petition asked that he be appointed the primary custodial parent of the parties’ children. The district court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim under
BACKGROUND
¶2 Ryan and Brenda divorced in June 2014. The divorce decree incorporated, and was based on, the parties’ stipulation and property settlement agreement. The parties stipulated, and the court decreed, that they would have joint legal and physical custody of their children, with Brenda as the “primary physical custodial parent” and the children attending school based on her residence. The parties’ stipulation and the decree
¶3 Additionally, the parties stipulated to a parenting plan. As relevant here, the plan expressed an overarching preference for resоlving co-parenting disputes between them, using “experts to assist them” in doing so “when they are unable to resolve conflict themselves” and to “solve problems and make joint decisions by working through [the] decision-making procedure” included in the plan. It also expressed the parties’ agreement to make “major decisions” regarding the children together and to use a mediator before seeking a resolution in court when, “after following the joint decision-making procedure and implementing the governing principles,” the parties were unable to “reach a consensus.”
¶4 In May 2019, Ryan filed a petition to modify the divorce decree (the Petition). He contended it was in the children‘s best interest that he be awarded “primary custody” of them, “with Brenda enjoying pаrent-time pursuant to
¶5 Specifically, Ryan alleged: (1) “Brenda does not communicate with Ryan regarding [the children] and their needs“; (2) Ryan was “not informed” when one of the children “suffered a concussion” or about the associated “activity restrictions“; (3) “Brenda has refused to allow [the children] to attend significant events in Ryan‘s and [the children‘s] lives“; (4) Ryan and his current spouse have a two-year-old child “with whom [the children] are bonded and with whom they desire to spend more time,” and Ryan‘s current spouse works from home and is able to care for the children; (5) “Ryan‘s job and work hours have stabilized” since the decree was entered, “giving him predictability in when he is at home and able to spend time” with the children; (6) during Ryan‘s Thursday overnight parent-time, he “spends much of the time . . . doing homework” with the children, “which has accumulated throughout the week” while the children were with Brenda; (7) “Brenda does not give [the children] their medication“; (8) the children “have been neglected in their personal hygiene and appearance“; (9) Brenda allows the children “constant screen time“; (10) Brenda is cohabiting with someone who is “forcing [the children] into a vegan lifestyle, resulting in malnourishment,” and who has warrants out for his arrest; (11) the children have asked “Ryan if they can spend more time with him“; and (12) “Brenda has an established pattern of neglecting” the children.
¶6 Brenda filed a motion to dismiss the Petition pursuant to
¶7 After an evidentiary hearing, the district court dismissed the Petition on two independеnt grounds. First, the court agreed with Brenda that the Petition failed to state a claim under
¶8 Second, as an alternative ground for dismissal, the court determined
¶9 Ryan timely appeals.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶10 Ryan appeals the Petition‘s dismissal under
¶11 Ryan also challenges the court‘s dismissal of the Petition for failure to use dispute resolution procedures, contending the court erred by sua sponte determining that his failure to use dispute resolution procedures justified dismissal of the Petition. While district courts generally have inherent authority and discretion regarding the “manage[ment of] their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases,” see PDC Consulting, Inc. v. Porter, 2008 UT App 372, ¶ 14, 196 P.3d 626 (quotation simplified), to the extent this issue implicates the process afforded to Ryan, it is a legal question we consider under a correctness standard, see Brigham Young Univ. v. Tremco Consultants, Inc., 2007 UT 17, ¶ 25, 156 P.3d 782.
ANALYSIS
¶12 The distriсt court dismissed the Petition for failure to state a claim under
¶13 Ryan also argues the district court erred by granting the motion to dismiss on the alternative ground that he had not utilized dispute resolution procedures in seeking modification of the decree.
¶14 We address each issue below, ultimately concluding the court erred in granting Brenda‘s motion for dismissal under
I. Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim
A. Applicable Principles
¶15 “A complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted if it alleges the facts and sets forth the legal basis for an available legal remedy.” Simmons Media Group, LLC v. Waykar, LLC, 2014 UT App 145, ¶ 15, 335 P.3d 885 (quotation simplified). “A
¶16 The Petition requested a change in primary custody. Modification of an order establishing joint physical or legal custody is governed by
¶17 The change-in-circumstances inquiry is a threshold requirement for reopening a custody order. Doyle v. Doyle, 2011 UT 42, ¶ 25, 258 P.3d 553. It has two
¶18 Our courts have recognized that “the change in circumstances required to justify a modification of a divorce decree varies with the type of modification sought.” Erickson, 2018 UT App 184, ¶ 16 (quotation simplified). For example, when modifying parent-time (as opposed to custody), “the petitioner is required to make only some showing of a change in circumstances, which does not rise to the same level as the substantial and material showing required when a district court alters custody.” Id. (quotation simplified); see also Blocker v. Blocker, 2017 UT App 10, ¶ 12, 391 P.3d 1051.
¶19 Further, “in some cases, a lesser showing of changed circumstances may support modifying a stipulated award than would be required to modify an adjudicated award,” because “the res judicata policies underlying the changed-circumstances rule are at a particularly low ebb.” Peeples, 2019 UT App 207, ¶ 15 (quotation simplified); see also Elmer v. Elmer, 776 P.2d 599, 603 (Utah 1989); Zavala v. Zavala, 2016 UT App 6, ¶¶ 16–17, 366 P.3d 422.
¶20 Nevertheless, for custody changes, “[t]he required finding of a material and substantial change of circumstances is statutory,” with the result that “[n]either this court nor the supreme court has purported to—or could—alter that requirement.” Zavala, 2016 UT App 6, ¶ 16; see also Peeples, 2019 UT App 207, ¶ 13. As a result, although the changed-circumstances showing may differ depending on the case, “[i]f a custody award has already been entered, custody will not be re-examined absent a material and substantial change of circumstances.” Zavala, 2016 UT App 6, ¶ 16; see also Peeples, 2019 UT App 207, ¶ 15 (acknowlеdging “that the change-in-circumstances requirement still applies even in cases involving stipulated (as opposed to adjudicated) custody orders“). See generally Doyle, 2011 UT 42, ¶ 38 (“Even an overwhelming case for the best interest of the child could not compensate for a lack of proof of a change in circumstances.“).
¶21 Applying these principles, we conclude the district court improperly applied the
¶22 Because the court‘s application of
B. Custody Standard
¶23 Ryan contends the district court, in evaluating the Petition, improperly applied the heightened changed-circumstances standard applicable to custody chаnges. He claims the Petition merely requested a change in parent-time and asserts the court erred by declining to apply the lesser changed-circumstances showing applicable to changes in parent-time.
¶24 The district court determined the standard applicable to modification requests for custody changes in
¶25 We perceive no error in the changed-circumstances standard the court applied. First, although the divorce decree granted the parties joint legal and physical custody, Brenda was designated as the “primary physical custodial parent,” with Ryan awarded parent-time. The Petition plainly requested the court to award Ryan “primary custody” of the children, “with Brenda enjoying parent-time,” and set forth a number of “substantial and material change[s] in circumstances” Ryan believed supported his request. Although on appeal Ryan characterizes his request merely as a change in parent-time, he nevertheless agrees that it asked to “mak[e] him the primary physical custodian.”
¶26 In this respect, Ryan‘s request is more than merely a request to change parent-time. If the request were granted, Ryan would be deemed the primary custodial parent, with Brenda receiving parent-time. This change would dramatically decrease the number of overnights the children would spend per year with Brenda while increasing them for Ryan. Among other things, Brenda‘s overnights would decrease from 220 per year to 145, and Ryan‘s would increase to 220. See generally
¶27 Thus, we do not agree with Ryan that his request is properly characterized merely as a change in parent-time; in substance, he has asked for an order to have the children‘s primary custodial parent changed.6 We therefore conclude the court correctly applied the statutory changed-circumstances standard applicable to custody modification requests under
¶28 In short, we perceive no error in the court‘s decision to apply to the Petition the standard applicable to custody change requests under
C. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
¶29 Ryan contends the district court erred by dismissing his Petition under
¶30
¶31 The Petition sought a change in the parties’ custody arrangement. See supra ¶¶ 23–28. As discussed above, in the context of petitions to modify custody orders, the allegations must demonstrate “that admissible evidence will show that the circumstances of the child or one or both parents or joint
¶32 Here, the district court articulated the correct legal standard, but ultimately misapplied it. It recognized its duty “to review [the changed-circumstances allegations] of the Petition . . . and to take those alleged facts at face value and any inferences that can be drawn from them in favor of the non-moving party” to determine whether the Petition stated a claim for modifying the custody order. And the court recited the appropriate standard in reaching its conclusion that Ryan had “not suрported the allegation that admissible evidence will show that the circumstances of the children or one or both of the parents have materially and substantially changed since the entry of the order to be modified,” stating it reached its conclusion by
¶33 But in reaching that conclusion, the court acknowledged that most of the Petition‘s allegations “could support some change” and thereby constituted appropriate considerations for evaluating a custody change. Nevertheless, the court discounted those allegations in conducting its analysis of the changes. The court determined that, for various reasons, many of the Petition‘s allegations were entitlеd to little weight. For example, it determined that allegations about Brenda‘s failure to communicate, failure to allow the children to attend “significant events,” allowance of constant screen-time, and neglect were entitled to “little weight” in the overall substantial and material change analysis. Similarly, the court determined that several of the allegations, including the homework-related, cohabitation, and medication-regime allegations, were “of less value” in the substantial and material change analysis as the result of Ryan‘s failure to engage in alternative dispute resolution and enforcement proceedings before bringing the Petition. And for certain allegations, including those regarding screen-time and Brenda‘s cohabitation, the court аcknowledged that it needed more facts to properly analyze the weight and consideration to be afforded them in the overall change-of-circumstances analysis, yet it also discounted the allegations for that reason.
¶34 By analyzing the weight and value of the allegations as well as the necessity of more facts, the court proceeded past the proper
¶35 To be sure, the determination of whether allegations of changed circumstances amount to a material and substantial change is a legal one. See Huish v. Munro, 2008 UT App 283, ¶ 19, 191 P.3d 1242 (characterizing a court‘s conclusion about “whether a material change in circumstances has occurred that would warrant reconsidering the original decree” as a “legal conclusion” (quotation simplified)); Hudema v. Carpenter, 1999 UT App 290, ¶ 21, 989 P.2d 491 (same). As a result, if changed-circumstances allegations clearly raise only circumstances that our courts have already determined to be insufficient to justify modification of a divorce decree as a matter of law, a district court may dismiss a modification petition as failing to state a legally sufficient claim. See generally O‘Hearon, 2017 UT App 214, ¶ 10 (stating a motion to dismiss should be granted “only if it is clear from the allegations that the non-moving party would not be entitled to relief under the set of facts alleged or under any facts it could prove to support its claim“); cf. Peeples, 2019 UT App 207, ¶¶ 25, 27 (stating “[i]ssues that were present prior to the decree, and continue to be present in much the same way thereafter,” as well as “violations of a custody order by one party,” ordinarily do not “justify reexamining the propriety of the [custody] order“); Kelley v. Kelley, 2000 UT App 236, ¶ 22, 9 P.3d 171 (concluding “remarriage and/or failure to make support payments cannot alone justify a modification” of a divorce decree). Likewise, if a court determines a petition as a whole clearly does not allege a change in circumstances that has any relation to the parenting skills or custodial relationship or the circumstances on which the custodial arrangement was based, it may
¶36 But because a determination of whether “substantial and material changes have occurred is a fact-intensive legal determination,” see Doyle v. Doyle, 2009 UT App 306, ¶ 15, 221 P.3d 888, aff‘d, 2011 UT 42, 258 P.3d 553, a decision that a modification petition may be dismissed as legally insufficient under
¶37 For these reasons, we conclude the district court erred in dismissing the Petition for failure to state a claim under
II. Dismissal for Failure to Use Dispute Resolution Procedures
¶38 Ryan also challenges the district court‘s alternative ground for dismissal because of his failure to use dispute resolution procedures, arguing the court exceeded its discretion to dismiss the Petition on this ground. He contends the court erred by sua sponte raising the dispute resolution procedure issue and then ruling on it as an alternative ground for dismissal. He points out that Brenda‘s motion to dismiss “did not raise the issue of the alternate dispute resolution requirement” as a ground for dismissal, and he asserts the parties “had no knowledge the issue was being considered” by the court as a ground for dismissal until the hearing. On this basis, he contends the court erred by dismissing the Petition on this ground without allowing the parties to “fully brief the issue.” We agree.
¶39 Our supreme court has explained that Utah‘s “appellate system has developed along the adversarial model, which is founded on the premise that parties are in the best position to select and argue the issues most advantageous to themselves, while allowing an impartial tribunal to determine the merits of those arguments.” State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 8, 416 P.3d 443. In this respect, as a general rule, “all parties are entitled to notice that a particular issue is being сonsidered by a court and to an opportunity to present evidence and argument on that issue before decision.” Plumb v. State, 809 P.2d 734, 743 (Utah 1990). “Sua sponte decisions by [district] courts are inconsistent with the notion of due process when parties are not provided advance notice that the court is considering a given course of action, and the losing party is not allowed to be heard thereon.” Jenkins v. Weis, 868 P.2d 1374, 1383 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (Bench, J., dissenting). In other words, “[t]imely and adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way are the very heart of procedural fairness.” Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207, 1211 (Utah 1983); see also Rubins v. Plummer, 813 P.2d 778, 780 (Colo. App. 1990) (“The right to prior notice and an opportunity to be heard is a critical part of our judicial system.” (citing Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970))). And, as to sua sponte dismissals in particular, a court should “normally refrain” from doing so unless the deficiency оr issue “is brought to its attention by way of pleadings or motions by the parties.” See Rubins, 813 P.2d at 779. “[I]f the court is inclined to dismiss sua sponte, it must afford the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard” and to “persuade the court that dismissal is not proper” as a “matter of fundamental fairness, if not procedural due process.” Id.
¶40 Here, Brenda‘s motion to dismiss did not raise the failure to use dispute resolution procedures in relation to the request to modify custody as a basis for failure to state a claim under
¶41 As a result, Ryan was first made aware during the hearing itself that the court was considering dismissal on the additional ground that he had failed to use dispute resolution procedures before seeking court intervention. The court raised the dispute resolution issue sua sponte at the hearing, and apparently in the context of determining whether Ryan had satisfied the requirements for modification of custody under
¶42 In doing so, the court denied Ryan an adequate opportunity to prepare for and address the dispute resolution issue before it announced its dismissal on that ground. For example, had Ryan been made aware that the court was considering the dispute resolution issue in conjunction with Brenda‘s motion, he might have made an informed decision to forgo pursuing the Petition in favor of engaging in mediation or another dispute resolution procedure. In this respect, because of the court‘s sua sponte treatment of the issue, Ryan was not afforded the opportunity to prepare for and address, with authority, whether engaging in dispute resolution proceedings, as set out in
¶43 Indeed, as Ryan has pointed out on appeal, there were some important questions raised by the court‘s sua sponte treatment of the issue, including whether compliance with a dispute resolution procedure is required to state a claim for modification of custody or whether use of a dispute resolution procedure was required under the circumstances and in light of the allegations in this case. Because the court both sua sponte raised the issue for the first time and then rendered dismissal on it during the hearing, Ryan was denied an opportunity to research authority and consider, prepare for, and respond to these and other related issues. See In re Cannatella, 2006 UT App 89, ¶ 3.
CONCLUSION
¶45 The district court applied the proper changed-circumstances standard in evaluating the Petition. But it misapplied the