Hall v. Hall

• Decision Date: 09 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 20120437–CA.,20120437–CA.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals
• Parties: Janet K. HALL, Petitioner and Appellee, v. Dennis R. HALL, Respondent and Appellant.

316 P.3d 970

748 Utah Adv. Rep. 20

Janet K. HALL, Petitioner and Appellee,

v.Dennis R. HALL, Respondent and Appellant.

No. 20120437–CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Nov. 21, 2013.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 2014.

Nathan E. Burdsal and Hutch U. Fale, Attorneys for Appellant.

Lori W. Nelson and Brent A. Orozco, Attorneys for Appellee.

Senior Judge JUDITH M. BILLINGS authored this Opinion, in which Judges JAMES Z. DAVIS and STEPHEN L. ROTH concurred.¹

Opinion

BILLINGS, Senior Judge:

¶ 1 Dennis R. Hall (Husband) appeals from the trial court's orders resulting from a contempt hearing initiated by Janet K. Hall (Wife). We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 As part of their divorce in 2007, Husband and Wife reserved several issues to be dealt with in a subsequent stipulation. That later agreement (the Stipulation) was signed by the parties on March 23, 2010. Two days later, Wife's counsel sent a letter to Husband's counsel, clarifying her understanding that the cash value of all of the parties' life insurance policies would be equalized under the Stipulation. Husband's attorney responded with a list of fourteen life insurance policies that he understood would be equalized. Thereafter, the court signed a supplemental decree of divorce as a result of the Stipulation.

¶ 3 Later that summer, Wife sought the issuance of an order to show cause, arguing that Husband should be found in contempt for several acts of noncompliance with the Stipulation. Husband thereafter filed a response and also made several claims of contempt against Wife.

¶ 4 The trial court held an order to show cause hearing. At the hearing, the trial court (1) determined that the provision of the Stipulation requiring the equalization of the cash value of life insurance policies included the fourteen life insurance policies listed in Husband's attorney's letter, (2) clarified Husband's obligation regarding refinancing the marital property, (3) stated that Husband's claims of contempt regarding personal property and medical expenses were not adequately supported by the evidence, (4) found that neither party was in contempt, and (5) initially denied Wife an award of attorney fees but left open the possibility for her to resubmit an attorney fees request. Wife submitted a later request for attorney fees based both on her inability to pay and her status as having substantially prevailed on her claims. The trial court then awarded Wife attorney fees based on her inability to pay.

¶ 5 Husband raises several claims of error with the trial court's findings and conclusions resulting from the evidentiary hearing. Wife responds with an assertion that Husband's appeal was not timely filed.

ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 6 First, we address Wife's argument that Husband has not met the timing requirements set forth by rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, seeUtah R.App. P. 4(a). “If an appeal is not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal.” Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616. “An appellate court's determination of whether it has jurisdiction to hear an appeal is a question of law.” State v. Norris, 2002 UT App 305, ¶ 5, 57 P.3d 238 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We address this argument first because a determination that the appeal is untimely would be dispositive.

¶ 7 Second, Husband challenges the trial court's determination regarding the equalization of life insurance policies. The trial court determined that the relevant provision in the Stipulation was ambiguous and that the parties intended for the equalization to include all the life insurance policies listed in the letter send by Husband's attorney. “[W]hether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law, which we review for correctness. But where an appellate court finds that a contract is ambiguous and looks to extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties, it must give deference to the lower court's findings of fact.” Watkins v. Henry Day Ford, 2013 UT 31, ¶ 19, 304 P.3d 841 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 8 Third, Husband contests the trial court's interpretation of his obligations under the Stipulation relating to the refinancing of the marital home. However, due to actions taken while this appeal was pending, Husband now asserts, and we agree, that this issue is moot. We therefore do not address this issue on the merits.

¶ 9 Fourth, Husband argues that the trial court erred in determining that he had presented no evidence to support his claims of contempt against Wife regarding medical bills and certain personal property. Such legal conclusions are reviewed for correctness. See State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932, 936 (Utah 1994).

¶ 10 Fifth, Husband contests the award of attorney fees to Wife, arguing that the statute cited by the court does not allow an award based on Wife's inability to pay. “Generally, [w]e review a trial court's decision regarding attorney fees in a divorce proceeding for an abuse of discretion. However, the proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law. Thus, the interpretation of the attorney fee statute is reviewed for correctness.” Connell v. Connell, 2010 UT App 139, ¶ 6, 233 P.3d 836 (alteration in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS

I. Timeliness of Appeal

¶ 11 As an initial matter, we address Wife's argument that Husband's appeal was not timely filed. See generallyUtah R.App. P. 4 (setting forth timing requirements for filing a notice of appeal). First, Wife relies on the dates that various orders were signed to determine whether the deadline for appeal was met. However, the applicable rule provides that “the notice of appeal ... shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Id. R. 4(a) (emphasis added); see alsoUtah R. Civ. P. 58A(c) (“A judgment is complete and shall be deemed entered for all purposes, except the creation of a lien on real property, when it is signed and filed....” (emphasis added)). Second, Wife alleges that Husband did not appeal from the April 30 contempt order until August 10. But the record shows that Husband filed his first notice of appeal on May 24—within the thirty-day time limit. Further, when a second order was entered July 11, primarily to put the word “Judgment” in the title but making no substantive changes to the prior order, Husband responded by filing another notice of appeal on August 10—again within the thirty-day time limit. Thus, Husband's appeal is timely.²

II. Equalization of Life Insurance

¶ 12 The trial court determined that the provision regarding life insurance in the Stipulation was ambiguous and that the equalization was intended to include the value of all of the life insurance policies listed in the letter sent by Husband's attorney. In addressing the issue of facial ambiguity, the trial court must follow the two-part approach set forth in Daines v. Vincent, 2008 UT 51, ¶ 26, 190 P.3d 1269. First, when determining whether an ambiguity exists, the trial court must consider “ ‘any relevant evidence’ ” in order to avoid a determination that “ ‘is based solely on the “extrinsic evidence of the judge's own linguistic education and experience.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass'n, 907 P.2d 264, 268 (Utah 1995)). Then, after the trial court has considered “evidence of contrary interpretations, the [trial court] must ensure that ‘the interpretations contended for are reasonably supported by the language of the contract.’ ” Id. (quoting Ward, 907 P.2d at 268).³

¶ 13 The provision at issue here reads, in its entirety,

13. Life Insurance. The parties have life insurance policies, which shall be divided as follows:

a. [Husband] has a life insurance policy on his life with a face value of $1,000,000. It is fair and reasonable that [Husband] be ordered to maintain in full force and effect the $1,000,000 life insurance policy on his life naming [Wife] as the beneficiary until such time as [Husband] pays off the property settlement owed by [Husband] to [Wife] as referred to herein. [Husband] should submit once a year to [Wife] proof that the policy is in full force and effect;

b. [Wife] has a life insurance policy on her life, which she is awarded;

C. Each of the life insurance policies has a cash value. The parties will equalize the difference in the cash value and [Husband] shall pay [Wife] one-half the difference within ninety (90) days of the signing of this Stipulation.

The parties disagree about which life insurance policies were intended to be covered by subsection (c). Wife argues that the subsection refers to all of Husband's and Wife's family life insurance policies, while Husband argues that it refers to only the two policies discussed specifically in subsections (a) and (b).

¶ 14 We first consider the relevant extrinsic evidence to determine whether the Stipulation is ambiguous. Wife primarily relies on correspondence between her attorney and Husband's attorney. Two days after the parties signed the Stipulation, Wife's attorney sent a letter to Husband's attorney, stating,

[W]e need to clarify that all insurances will be equalized and [Wife] gets one-half. Not just [Wife's] and [Husband's] policies. [Wife] is aware that [Husband] has been putting money away into several policies for an extended period of time for himself and the children. This is marital money and is appropriately divided.

Husband's attorney responded, providing a list of fourteen life insurance policies and stating, “It is my understanding that these policies are the policies to be equalized.” Based on this response, Wife's attorney sent Husband's attorney a calculation of the equalized amount and a request for payment. Neither Husband nor his attorney questioned or objected to this calculation prior to the proceedings on Wife's order to show cause.

¶ 15 Husband argues that this...