Pulham v. Kirsling, 041218 UTCA, 20150577-CA
| Judge | Judge Jill M. Pohlman authored this Opinion, in which Judges Kate A. Toomey and David N. Mortensen concurred. |
| Parties | Kristen Pulham, Appellee, v. William Kirsling, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | 20150577-CA,20160236-CA |
| Date | 12 April 2018 |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Richard D. McKelvie No. 104901246
Margaret S. Edwards, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve S. Christensen and Clinton R. Brimhall, Attorneys for Appellee.
Judge Jill M. Pohlman authored this Opinion, in which Judges Kate A. Toomey and David N. Mortensen concurred.
POHLMAN, JUDGE.
¶1 This case involves two appeals in the same domestic relations dispute.1 In the first appeal (the First Appeal), William Kirsling challenges several aspects of the amended decree entered in his divorce from Kristen Pulham. In the second appeal (the Second Appeal), Kirsling challenges the trial court's denial of his petition to modify the divorce decree's custody arrangement. We affirm the trial court's decisions in both appeals.
BACKGROUND
The Trial and the Amended Decree
¶2 Pulham and Kirsling were married in 2008 and separated in 2010. The parties had one child (Child) born during the marriage. In June 2012, the trial court entered a bifurcated decree of divorce, reserving several issues for trial.
¶3 At a bench trial in 2014, the parties contested the issues of custody, child support, past-due child support, and unreimbursed child care expenses. Each party also alleged that the other party was in contempt of the court's prior orders and should therefore face sanctions.
¶4 On Child's custody, the trial court made detailed findings. Among other things, it found that Pulham had remarried, had a son with her new husband, and was living in Tooele, Utah. The court also found that Pulham had been the primary caregiver of Child since birth and that, at the time of trial, Pulham was unemployed and was acting as the full-time caregiver of her younger son and Child.
¶5 Regarding Kirsling, the court found that he was living in Taylorsville, Utah, with his girlfriend and her children, and that Kirsling's older son from a previous marriage lived with Kirsling part-time. The court also found that Kirsling had resided in various places, including Brigham City, Utah, and Phoenix, Arizona, for lengthy periods after the parties separated. The court found that even though Kirsling's "contact and visitation with [Child] ha[d] been inconsistent for much of that time, " his contact had "stabilized considerably" in the year leading up to trial.
¶6 Although Kirsling and Pulham agreed at trial that it would be in Child's best interest if they shared joint physical and legal custody, they sharply disagreed about the details of that custody, including where Child should be enrolled in school and with whom she should primarily reside. A custody evaluator prepared a custody evaluation and testified about it at trial.
¶7 Kirsling requested a court order requiring Child to enroll in the school near his home in Taylorsville for three years, at which point Child would then transfer to the school near Pulham's home for the latter half of elementary school. The court rejected Kirsling's request, reasoning that his plan would require Child "to spend considerable time commuting by car between Taylorsville and Tooele"-amounting to "upwards of an hour each way, before school and after school"-and that it was not in Child's best interest to do so merely to accommodate Kirsling's preferred parenting plan. The court also reasoned that Kirsling's plan would require Child to change elementary schools and that such a plan, which would put Child through "an unnecessary adjustment of surroundings, friends and routine, " was not in Child's best interest.
¶8 In the November 2014 amended divorce decree (the Amended Decree), which followed the earlier bifurcated decree, the trial court awarded the parties joint physical and legal custody. The court also ordered that Pulham would be the primary custodial parent and would have the final say in parenting decisions for Child, including which school Child would attend.
¶9 As for parent-time, the court determined that a standard parent-time order, as anticipated under Utah Code section 30-3-35, did "not provide sufficient parent time" for Kirsling and was not in Child's best interest. As a result, the court awarded Kirsling additional parent-time in a manner that avoided "creating the attendant travel time that would be inflicted upon [Child] by [Kirsling's] proposed parenting plan."
¶10 On future child support, the trial court found that it would be calculated based on Pulham's monthly income of $30 and Kirsling's monthly income of $4, 580, "which are the stipulated monthly gross incomes" of the parties. Then, referencing the Utah Code and a custody worksheet, 2 the court ordered Kirsling to pay Pulham $548 per month for child support.
¶11 On past-due child support, the trial court found that the evidence supported Pulham's claim that Kirsling had an outstanding obligation for a period before 2012. The court also found that Pulham incurred fees paid to the Office of Recovery Services (ORS) due to Kirsling's "failure to timely pay his child support obligation." Because Kirsling had not been "consistently responsible for payments until ORS intervened, " the court agreed with Pulham that Kirsling should reimburse her for the ORS fees. Accordingly, the court ordered Kirsling to pay Pulham for past-due child support and ORS fees.
¶12 On unreimbursed child care expenses, the trial court found that Pulham had shown that Kirsling had not paid his share of some expenses. The court ordered Kirsling to pay Pulham those expenses.
¶13 Finally, on the allegations of contempt of court, the trial court found that "insufficient evidence was presented at trial to warrant sanctions for either party." Thus, the court dismissed all charges of contempt.
The Motion for a New Trial
¶14 Kirsling moved for a new trial pursuant to rule 59(a) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.3 The motion was accompanied by an unsworn document signed by his attorney that purported to be Kirsling's affidavit. As relevant here, Kirsling challenged the trial court's decisions regarding child support and custody as well as the amounts Kirsling owed to Pulham for past-due child support and child care expenses.
¶15 With respect to the amounts owed to Pulham for past-due child support and child care expenses, Kirsling contended that, under rule 59(a)(4), he had newly discovered evidence that he could not have produced at trial. Referring to Pulham's testimony that she did not receive a particular payment, he asserted that post-trial he was "able to obtain a photocopy of the cashed money order that was presented to [Pulham's] counsel as settlement for the financial issues of the case" and that the new information affected the amounts he owed Pulham.
¶16 In denying the motion, the trial court began by characterizing the purported affidavit as "an argument by [Kirsling's] counsel, complaining generally of the failure of the Court to find in [Kirsling's] favor." The court then rejected Kirsling's newly discovered evidence argument, explaining that Kirsling had not established "whether or why he was unable to obtain this evidence prior to trial" and also had not shown that "the introduction of the evidence would have resulted in a different trial outcome."4
¶17 Kirsling raised another argument under rule 59(a)(6), attacking the court's determination that Pulham's gross monthly income was $30 for child support purposes. Kirsling argued that the evidence was insufficient because the court did "not show[] why Ms. Pulham's income was not calculated" based on her employment potential and probable earnings pursuant to a statute governing the imputation of income. Kirsling asserted this same argument as an error of law under rule 59(a)(7).
¶18 The court rejected Kirsling's arguments. It explained that Utah Code section 78B-12-203(7) dictates the circumstances under which the trial court may impute income and gives discretion to the court to impute under those certain circumstances. The court then explained that it "did not impute income to [Pulham]" and that the application of this statute was "not the basis for a complaint of 'insufficient evidence'" under rule 59(a)(6). Similarly, the court concluded that, in relation to rule 59(a)(7), it had not committed an error of law, because it had "exercised its discretion in determining not to impute income to [Pulham], something the statute authorizes it to do."
¶19 Concerning custody, Kirsling contended that, under rule 59(a)(7), the trial court erred when it did not follow the recommendations of the custody evaluator. In particular, he stated that the court failed to provide "a detailed and clear finding" explaining why it did not adopt the custody evaluator's recommendation. The court rejected this argument as well, maintaining that it had "articulated the reasons for its decision regarding custody."
¶20 The trial court denied the motion for a new trial on June 17, 2015. Kirsling filed a timely notice of appeal, giving rise to the First Appeal. In his notice of appeal, Kirsling stated that he thereby appealed "the final Decree of Divorce . . . entered in this matter on June 17, 2015, " and that the appeal was "taken from such parts of the judgment as follow": Paragraph 3 regarding child support calculation; Paragraph 4 regarding child support, ORS fees, and child care expenses; and Paragraph 8 regarding contempt.
The Petition to Modify the Amended Decree
¶21 On the same day he filed the First Appeal, Kirsling petitioned the trial court for a modification of the Amended Decree. Specifically, Kirsling asserted that "[a] significant change of circumstances has occurred as a result of [his] recent relocation to Stansbury Park, Utah, which is located approximately 15 minutes of driving time from his home to the home of [Pulham]." Kirsling further asserted that at the time the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial