Donnelly v. Donnelly

• Decision Date: 04 April 2013
• Docket Number: No. 20100764–CA.,20100764–CA.
• Citation: Donnelly v. Donnelly, 301 P.3d 6 (Utah App. 2013)
• Parties: Michael DONNELLY, Petitioner, Appellant, and Cross-appellee, v. Stacy DONNELLY, Respondent, Appellee, and Cross-appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

301 P.3d 6

Michael DONNELLY, Petitioner, Appellant, and Cross-appellee,

v.Stacy DONNELLY, Respondent, Appellee, and Cross-appellant.

No. 20100764–CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

April 4, 2013.

Steve S. Christensen, Salt Lake City, and Lisa B. Thornton, for Appellant.

Thomas R. King, Sandy, for Appellee.

Opinion

THORNE, Judge:

¶ 1Michael Donnelly(Husband) appeals from the district court's Decree of Divorce, challenging the district court's temporary and permanent alimony awards and its orders pertaining to reimbursement of travel expenses and medical insurance premiums.Stacy Donnelly(Wife) cross-appeals, challenging the district court's decision to value Husband's retirement plan as of the date of the parties' separation rather than the date of divorce.We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Husband and Wife married in 1996.The marriage produced three children, born in 1998, 2001, and 2002.There was apparently considerable discord between Husband and Wife over the course of the marriage.¹The couple separated in January 2005, and Husband filed for divorce in February 2005.The district court entered a Temporary Order on April 12, 2005, awarding Wife temporary physical and legal custody of the children and ordering Husband to pay $1,719 per month in child support and $2,000 per month as temporary spousal support.The Temporary Order also awarded Wife possession of the marital home and ordered her to pay the mortgage and utilities on the residence, which amounted to approximately $2,000 per month.At the hearing on temporary orders, the district court also ordered Husband to pay the full amount of the children's medical insurance premiums during the pendency of the action.

¶ 3 In June 2005, Wife moved to New Jersey and took the children with her.They took up residence rent-free at Wife's parents' home.The ostensible reason for the relocation was to improve Wife's health, although the district court later determined that Wife moved “not solely for medical reasons but indeed to get away from [Husband], because of her views toward him.”At some point following the move, the parties' youngest child was diagnosed with autism.

¶ 4 In November 2005, Husband moved for a reduction in temporary alimony on the grounds that he had lost $1,000 per month in income from a second job and that Wife's financial need had been reduced by approximately $2,000 when the marital home had sold in June, eliminating her mortgage and utility obligations.However, by this time, Wife claimed an increase in her monthly financial needs notwithstanding the elimination of her housing expenses.After “more carefully examin[ing] the previous orders, the submissions of the parties with respect to income and expenses, and the need and ability,”the district court ordered that Wife's temporary alimony award be lowered to $1,500 per month, effective December 2005(the Amended Temporary Order).

¶ 5 The matter finally came to trial on September 2, 3, and 4, 2009.In its September 16, 2009 Memorandum Decision, the district court awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children to Wife, with parent-time as recommended by a court-appointed custody evaluator.The district court found that Husband earned $7,031 per month in his employment as a systems analyst and software engineer.The court found that Wife was not employed, but, for the first time, imputed income to her in the amount of $1,600 per month.In light of these income findings, the district court ordered Husband to pay child support pursuant to Utah's child support guidelines, which was ultimately calculated to be $1,348 per month.

¶ 6 As to alimony, the district court applied the above income figures and made findings regarding each party's financial need.Husband claimed expenses of $4,529 per month, which the district court reduced to $4,100.Wife claimed monthly expenses of $5,703 per month, a figure that did not include housing expenses because she and the children continued to live rent-free at Wife's parents' home.Wife's claimed expenses included “special foods for [the parties' youngest child], lots of therapy for him, and so forth.”The district court allowed the “special needs child expenses” but disallowed other claimed expenses including play dates, classroom parties, and veterinary expenses.Ultimately, the court determined Wife's monthly need to be $4,200 per month.The court then made its alimony determination as follows:

Weighing all the necessary factors (ability to provide for self, need, and ability to assist, and others), and given the rather imprecise nature of the true expenses of [Wife] particularly as they relate to [the parties' youngest child], and given her payments shown on many, many other things which appear to be unrelated to the claims concerning [the child](clothing and restaurants and storage and pets appear to average over $1000 per month in total), and given the uncertain nature of [Wife's] ability to truly provide for herself considering her medical condition, and given the imprecise amounts needed for the travel [Husband] will incur to see the children, the court believes that $1000 per month is a fair and equitable amount of alimony.

¶ 7The district court also entered judgment in favor of Wife for $18,861 in past due alimony and child support payments and $8,575 for reimbursement of medical expenses, allowing Husband a $5,658 credit for prior overpayments of child support that had resulted from a clerical error and a $5,944 credit for payments he had made toward marital debt.The court denied Husband's request that temporary alimony be retroactively reduced or eliminated as occasioned by the elimination of Wife's housing expenses when she moved to New Jersey.The court also denied Husband's request for reimbursement for the children's visitation-related travel expenses that were necessitated by Wife's relocation.The court addressed cross-motions for contempt, finding Wife in contempt for interfering with visitation but reserving the issue of sanctions.The court declined to find Husband in contempt for his support arrearages.

¶ 8 On September 14, 2009, after trial but prior to the issuance of the Memorandum Decision, Wife filed a motion asking the district court to reopen the case to accept additional evidence pertaining to the valuation and division of Husband's retirement account.The Memorandum Decision reserved this issue pending Husband's response, and the district court eventually granted the motion and held a hearing on the issues of when the account should be valued and how it should be divided.On December 24, the district court issued its Supplemental Memorandum Decision, ruling that the retirement account was to be equally divided between the parties based on the account's value as of the parties' January 2005 separation.On March 8, 2010, the district court entered a Decree of Divorce that incorporated both the Memorandum Decision and the Supplemental Memorandum Decision.

¶ 9 On March 22, Husband filed a motion seeking to amend the Decree of Divorce to order an offset to Husband's past-due support payments in the amount of one half of the children's medical insurance premiums that Husband had paid pursuant to court order during the pendency of the litigation.Wife opposed Husband's motions, arguing that Husband had never previously raised the issue despite having multiple appropriate opportunities to do so.The district court denied Husband's motion on June 22, 2010, “for the reasons stated by [Wife] in her opposition.”Husband filed a timely notice of appeal, and Wife filed a timely notice of cross-appeal.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 10 On appeal, Husband raises various challenges to the district court's temporary and permanent alimony awards.We review the district court's alimony rulings under an abuse of discretion standard.SeeOlson v. Olson,2010 UT App 22, ¶ 8, 226 P.3d 751(“The district court is granted considerable discretion in determining alimony, and its alimony determinations will be upheld on appeal unless a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion is demonstrated.”(citations and internal quotation marks omitted));Stonehocker v. Stonehocker,2008 UT App 11, ¶ 37, 176 P.3d 476(“We review ... grants of temporary support for an abuse of discretion.”).

¶ 11 Husband next argues that the district court misinterpreted Utah's relocation statute, seeUtah CodeAnn. § 30–3–37(LexisNexis Supp.2012), ² and generally abused its discretion when it refused to order Wife to reimburse husband for certain travel expenses incurred as a result of Wife's relocation.“[A]trial court's interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review for correctness.”Davis v. Davis,2011 UT App 311, ¶ 9, 263 P.3d 520(alteration in original).

¶ 12 Finally, Husband argues that the district court erred when it failed to order Wife to reimburse Husband for one half of the children's medical insurance premiums during the nearly five-year pendency of this action, which Husband had been ordered to pay at a March 2005 hearing on temporary orders.We review the district court's denial of a motion to amend a judgment pursuant to rule 59(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure for an abuse of discretion.SeeCrestwood Cove Apts. Bus. Trust v. Turner,2007 UT 48, ¶ 40, 164 P.3d 1247(stating that “a trial court has broad discretion to decide whether to grant relief under [rule 59]”).

¶ 13 On cross-appeal, Wife argues that the district court erred in valuing Husband's retirement account at the time of the parties' separation rather than at the time of divorce.“Trial courts have considerable discretion in determining ... property distribution in divorce cases, and [their decisions] will be upheld on appeal unless a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion is demonstrated.”Trubetzkoy v. Trubetzkoy,2009 UT App 77, ¶ 8, 205 P.3d 891(omission and alteration in original)(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

I.Alim...