Spall-Goldsmith v. Goldsmith
288 P.3d 1105
Utah Ct. App.
2012
Check Treatment
Case Information

*1 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ ooOoo ‐‐‐‐

Renee Spall Goldsmith, ) MEMORANDUM DECISION

)

Petitioner Appellee, ) Case No. )

v. ) F I L E D

) (October 2012) Willard Leroy Goldsmith IV, )

)

Respondent Appellant. ) ‐‐‐‐‐

Third District, Tooele Department, Honorable Robert W. Adkins

Attorneys: Vernon C. Jolley John J. Diamond, Sandy, Appellant

Olivia D. Uitto, Salt Lake City, Appellee ‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges Davis, McHugh, Voros.

McHUGH, Judge:

¶1 Willard Leroy Goldsmith IV (Father) appeals from trial court’s Judgment After Trial on Bifurcated Decree Divorce (the Decree), which former wife, Renee Spall Goldsmith (Mother). contends abused its discretion failing comply Act guidelines (the Guidelines) it determination upon rather worksheet. generally Ann. 2012); id . (LexisNexis We affirm. ¶2 After one day July Judge Stephen L. Henriod announced his decision bench, concluding best interest parties’ minor (Child) that Wife be awarded physical custody Child and that the parties share joint legal custody. Judge Henriod also awarded Father parent time approximately overnight stays per year, or roughly 44% the year, ruled that Father’s past payments participation extracurricular activities could be offset against support calculating arrearage. Although Judge Henriod announced findings regarding the income party, he did calculate the amount child support at that time. Instead, Judge Henriod instructed Father’s attorney prepare the Decree.

¶3 Father’s counsel submitted proposed decree, which included a support award based on the joint custody worksheet provided the Guidelines. Mother’s counsel objected, asserting that should be calculated using the custody because the court had awarded her sole physical custody Child. Before that dispute could be resolved final divorce decree entered, Judge Henriod retired.

¶4 Judge Robert W. Adkins was then assigned the case. Based on the record and arguments counsel at telephone conference, Judge Adkins entered Decree on June awarding “Physical Custody” Child “Joint Legal Custody” Father. As originally indicated by Judge Henriod, Decree also allowed Father exercise parent time equal approximately overnight per or roughly year. Decree sets Father’s base obligation at $509 per month, figure on worksheet. addition, Decree states that “[n]either Ordered pay for those extra curricular activities which . . . [Child] enrolled by other parent” “[a]ny past things like football or golf [Father] may have paid may be counted as determining what arrearage will be.” Father filed timely appeal Decree. Father contends erred failed base

award joint custody worksheet. Specifically, argues that, although trial Mother, was granted visitation that exceeds thirty percent threshold established Utah Legislature. id. (LexisNexis Thus, contends that required apply worksheet, see 2008), make fact would justify deviation it, see *3 § 78B ‐ 12 ‐ 202(3). disagrees, claiming trial court correctly used to calculate child support because not ordered to contribute Child’s expenses in addition child support. See id. § 78B ‐ 12 ‐ 102(14). Furthermore, claims because Father’s Child’s extracurricular activities were credited against obligation, they should be considered part of award, a contribution expenses.

¶6 “[A] trial court’s interpretation of statute is question of law we review for correctness.” Davis v. Davis , 2011 UT App 311, ¶ 9, 263 P.3d 520 (alteration original) (citing Blackner v. Department Transp. , 2002 UT 44, ¶ 8, 48 P.3d 949). Otherwise, “[w]e review trial court’s order an abuse discretion.” Connell v. Connell , 2010 UT App 139, ¶ 7, 233 P.3d 836.

¶7 We first review court’s interpretation statute. When facing a question statutory interpretation, “our primary goal evince true intent purpose [Utah] Legislature.” Salt Lake Cnty. v. Holliday Water Co. , 2010 UT 45, ¶ 27, 234 P.3d 1105 (citation internal quotation marks omitted). “The best evidence legislature’s intent ‘the plain language statute itself.’” State v. Miller , 2008 UT 61, ¶ 18, 193 P.3d 92 (quoting re Z.C. , 2007 UT 54, ¶ 6, 165 P.3d “When meaning [a] statute can be discerned from its language, no other interpretive tools are needed.” Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P’ship , 2011 UT 50, ¶ 15, 267 P.3d (alteration original) (citation internal quotation marks omitted). Utah Act defines “[j]oint custody” mean “the with each parents

contribute support.” Code Ann. § 78B ‐ 12 ‐ 102(14). “Utah law requires use worksheet” when requirements section 78B 12 ‐ 102(14) are met “make findings supporting its deviation.” See Rehn v. Rehn , 1999 ¶ 974 P.2d 306. When deviating guidelines, “the must at least consider seven factors listed [Utah Code section 12 202(3)] enter findings” reference them. id. (citing Ann. 78 45 7(3) (Michie 1996) (current version at 2008)); Allred v. Allred , P.2d (Utah Ct. App. 1990)). “A abuses discretion enter detailed these factors.” Id. (citing Allred , P.2d at 1111). relevant language of the Utah Child Support Act is plain face defines joint physical custody to include both (1) that “the child stays with each parent overnight for more than 30% of the year” and (2) that “both parents contribute to the expenses of the child addition to paying child support.” See Utah Code Ann. § 78B ‐ 12 102(14). Moreover, this has consistently interpreted the definition of joint physical custody as requiring both elements. See, e.g., Boyce v. Goble , 2000 UT App 237, ¶ 21, 8 P.3d 1042 (discussing “a bright line rule to determine if custody joint or sole” that requires both percentage requirement of overnight stays and that both parents contribute to expenses beyond child for joint physical custody); Rehn , 1999 UT App 41, ¶ 17 (requiring use of joint custody worksheet the “[father] had custody the children over 25% of the time and , addition his obligation, contributed overnight expenses children” (emphasis added)); Udy v. Udy , 893 P.2d 1097, 1100 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (analyzing whether joint custody worksheet was properly applied reviewing percent time father had custody of addition father’s payment expenses beyond his child obligations).

¶10 Father correctly argues, and concedes, that he has met requirement joint physical that stay him overnight for more than 30% the year. See Code Ann. 12 102(14). However, advances no argument on second requirement “both parents contribute expenses in addition paying support.” See Indeed, he identify Child’s expenses he paid explain why such showing unnecessary. As result, has not established share Child. Therefore, correctly applied required make warranting deviation Guidelines. Cf. 12 202(3). [1] , Rehn v. Rehn 1995), App. Ct. (Utah 1097 P.2d 893 , Udy v. Udy 1999 UT App 974 P.2d applied previous version statute—the Uniform Civil Liability Act, see Ann. §§ 45 2(13),  ‐ (Michie Supp. & 1994)—defining mean “the with parents contribute support.” Udy , P.2d at 1099–1100; Rehn , ¶ 16. summary, although has he advance argument has satisfied second element physical contributing support.

Because has argued requirements arrangement are present, we conclude properly child worksheet. ¶12 Affirmed.

____________________________________

Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge

‐‐‐‐‐

¶13 WE CONCUR:

____________________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

____________________________________

J. Frederic Voros Jr., Judge

Read the detailed case summary