Blog

Uncategorized

In Clarke v. Clarke, husband challenged several decisions made by the district court in entering the divorce decree, particularly concerning the court’s property distribution, and its decisions to award full legal and physical custody of the parties’ children to wife. Husband also challenged the district court’s decision to hold him in contempt and award related attorney’s fees to wife. Ultimately, the court affirmed the division of assets and the award of sole physical and legal custody, but reversed and remanded the attorney’s fees issue for recalculation.

Regarding the court’s decision to award full legal and physical custody to wife, the husband argued the court did not give his relationship with the children, and wife’s criminal conviction for custodial interference enough weight. Ultimately, the Appellate Court responded saying the district court did consider those factors, but ultimately gave sole physical and legal custody to wife because of the animosity between the parties and the fact that Husband had so clearly expressed his preference for homeopathic remedies as oppose to scientific medical care. The Court went on to review the record giving examples of how husband’s antipathy towards scientific medicine, and his unwillingness to compromise, put the children’s best interest at risk. The Court affirmed.

Finally, with regard to attorney’s fees for a contempt hearing, the Court affirmed the district court’s contempt ruling, but remanded to have the attorney’s fees recalculated. The contempt was for husband’s conduct (keeping one of the children despite a court order to the contrary) which occurred in September 2010, but being ordered to pay wife’s attorney’s fees from May, June, July, and August. The Court ruled those fees should be commensurately limited.

In Lamar v. Lamar

In this case, husband appeals from the divorce decree entered. The husband challenged the sufficiency of the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, husband failed to provide an adequate record, thereby failing the marshaling requirement.

The Court affirmed the ruling that husband pay half of a judgment against wife given husband had benefited from the use of the funds received when wife settled an earlier matter on behalf of her child and received a check, in the same amount of the judgment against wife.

The Court affirmed the ruling that husband pay half of a judgment against wife given husband had benefited from the use of the funds received when wife settled an earlier matter on behalf of her child and received a check, in the same amount of the judgment against wife.

The whole decree was affirmed and the Court entitled wife to an aware of attorney fees on appeal.

If you need a good Utah divorce attorney, give us a call at 801-895-3113 today for your free thirty minute consultation!

Schmidt Law Firm Law Firm

136 East South Temple Street #1500

Salt Lake City, UT 84111‎

(801) 895-3113‎

Leave a Reply