Dole v. Dole

POHLMAN, Judge

Opinion Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Richard D. McKelvie
No. 124905567 Jay L. Kessler, Attorney for Appellant Michelle L. Christensen and Dillon P. Olson, Attorneys for Appellee JUDGE JILL M. POHLMAN authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER and RYAN M. HARRIS concurred. POHLMAN, Judge: ¶1 Christopher Patton Dole and Julie Ann Dole divorced through a bifurcated decree and reserved several disputed issues for trial, including property division and child support. Following trial, the district court orally ruled on the outstanding issues, and entered its written findings and conclusions with the final decree. Christopher appeals the court's rulings with respect to income imputation, tax exemptions, and personal and real property divisions. He also appeals the court's denial of his post-trial motion seeking rulings on issues he claims were left unresolved. We affirm in part and dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Because the parties share a surname, we refer to them here by their first names, with no disrespect intended by the apparent informality. See, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 2017 UT App 40, ¶ 2 n.1, 392 P.3d 985.

ANALYSIS I. Findings and Conclusions

¶2 Christopher first argues that the district court erred in a variety of ways in rendering its final findings and conclusions of law. In particular, he challenges the court's decisions to (A) impute income to him, (B) award Julie the annual tax exemptions for their two children until they reach the age of majority, and (C) divide the personal and real property as it did. ¶3 We review challenges to factual findings for clear error, reversing only if the findings "are in conflict with the clear weight of the evidence, or if this court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Kidd v. Kidd, 2014 UT App 26, ¶ 13, 321 P.3d 200 (quotation simplified). We review the court's interpretation of relevant statutes for correctness. Dahl v. Dahl, 2015 UT 79, ¶ 155. Finally, to the extent Christopher challenges the adequacy of the court's findings and whether they support its ultimate conclusions, we review that issue for correctness. Shuman v. Shuman, 2017 UT App 192, ¶ 2, 406 P.3d 258. The court must support its decisions "with adequate findings and conclusions," which include enough detail and subsidiary facts "to disclose the steps by which the ultimate conclusion on each factual issue was reached." Kidd, 2014 UT App 26, ¶ 13 (quotations simplified); see also Fish v. Fish, 2016 UT App 125, ¶ 22, 379 P.3d 882 ("Findings are adequate when they contain sufficient detail to permit appellate review to ensure that adequate findings and conclusions, we will not substitute our judgment for the trial court's." Id. (quotation simplified). ¶7 At the time of trial, section 78B-12-203(7)(b) provided,

If income is imputed to a parent, the income shall be based upon employment potential and probable earnings as derived from employment opportunities, work history, occupation qualifications, and prevailing earnings for persons of similar backgrounds in the community, or the median earning for persons in the same occupation in the same geographical area as found in the statistics maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Utah Code Ann. § 78B-12-203(7)(b) (LexisNexis 2012). For purposes of calculating child support, the district court imputed $55,000 of annual income to Christopher. It arrived at this figure by relying on a vocational expert's opinion and the domestic relations commissioner's findings regarding income. In doing so, the court stated that "[t]he actual income of [Christopher] is impossible to determine" due to Christopher's "dishonesty to this Court, to his unaccountable income, [and to] his failure and refusal to obtain traditional employment." Indeed, the court noted that "much of the income that [Christopher] derives through his purchase and sale of [equipment] is unaccountable." ¶8 Contrary to Christopher's assertions, the court clearly stated in its oral and written findings that it based its imputation in part on the vocational expert's opinion, which addressed the section 78B-12-203(7)(b) factors. This is sufficient to support the court's imputation decision. See Vanderzon v. Vanderzon, 2017 UT App 150, ¶¶ 65-71, 402 P.3d 219 (explaining that we may affirm a district court's imputation determination if "we can infer the necessary findings from the vocational expert's report and testimony," and affirming the court's imputation finding where presume from a silent record that the court applied an incorrect legal standard but must presume the regularity and validity of the district court's proceedings, and that it applied the correct legal standard, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." (quotation simplified)); Widdison, 2014 UT App 233, ¶ 6. Because Christopher has not provided a basis from which we could conclude that the court failed to consider his disabilities, we presume that the court properly considered Christopher's disabilities in imputing income to him. ¶11 Accordingly, Christopher has failed to demonstrate error in the court's imputation decision. B. Tax Exemptions ¶12 Christopher next argues that the court erred in awarding Julie the annual tax exemptions for both of their children through the age of majority. We generally review a district court's decision to award tax exemptions for abuse of discretion. See Hill v. Hill, 869 P.2d 963, 967 (Utah Ct. App. 1994). ¶13 Tax exemption awards are governed by Utah Code section 78B-12-217, which provides:

(1) No presumption exists as to which parent should be awarded the right to claim a child or children as exemptions for federal and state income tax purposes. Unless the parties otherwise stipulate in writing, the court . . . shall award in any final order the exemption on a case-by-case basis.
(2) In awarding the exemption, the court . . . shall consider: (a) as the primary factor, the relative contribution of each parent to the cost of raising the child; and (b) among other factors, the relative tax benefit to each parent.

(3) Notwithstanding Subsection (2), the court . . . may not award any exemption to the noncustodial parent if that parent is not current in his child support obligation, in which case the court . . . may award an exemption to the custodial parent.
(4) An exemption may not be awarded to a parent unless the award will result in a tax benefit to that parent.

Here, the court awarded Julie the annual tax exemptions for both children for two reasons. First, it determined that Julie bore "the bulk of the expenses of the children." Second, it determined that, given that Julie earned more than twice Christopher's income at the time of trial, the tax advantages would work in both parties' favor if Julie claimed the exemptions because of their respective tax rates. ¶14 Christopher argues that the court erred because the statute should be interpreted to mean that exemptions should be awarded "exclusively to a party [only] when the other party gives very little or nothing to the custodial parent in the way of child support or other financial benefits," which he contends are not the circumstances in this case. On this basis, he claims that the annual exemptions should have been split and that he was entitled to one of the two exemptions. ¶15 Christopher's argument requires us to construe the tax exemption statute. The "primary objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain the intent of the legislature," and "the best evidence of the legislature's intent is the plain language of the statute itself." See Bagley v. Bagley, 2016 UT 48, ¶ 10, 387 P.3d 1000 (quotations simplified). We therefore "look first to the plain language of the statute," presuming that "the legislature used each word advisedly," and "when we can ascertain the intent of the legislature from the statutory terms alone, no other interpretive tools are needed, and our task of statutory construction is typically at an end." Id. (quotations simplified). Julie half its value in light of the court's broad discretion to adjust and divide marital property in divorce as well as the presumption that property acquired during a marriage is marital property to be divided equally. See Gerwe v. Gerwe, 2018 UT App 75, ¶ 17, 424 P.3d 1113 (quotation simplified); see also Dahl, 2015 UT 79, ¶ 119 (explaining the court's "considerable discretion" to divide marital property); id. ¶ 26 ("Utah law presumes that property acquired during a marriage is marital property subject to equitable distribution."); Olsen v. Olsen, 2007 UT App 296, ¶ 23, 169 P.3d 765 (stating that "[i]n Utah, marital property is ordinarily divided equally between the divorcing spouses"). Further, his argument does not address the overall distribution of the parties' property and financial interests, and Christopher fails to show why the court's disposition of the business inventory compared to Julie's income is inequitable on the whole. See Shuman v. Shuman, 2017 UT App 192, ¶ 18, 406 P.3d 258. Accordingly, we will not set aside the district court's division of the business inventory. ¶36 In sum, we affirm the district court's rulings regarding income imputation, tax exemptions, and the property division.

Christopher also claims that the court failed to determine whether he was voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, which he asserts it was required to do. However, this court has already rejected the legal assertion on which his argument depends. See, e.g., Reller v. Argenziano, 2015 UT App 241, ¶¶ 32-33, 360 P.3d 768. That rejection stands.

In this regard, Christopher concedes on appeal that there is "much still to be determined between the parties as to what is owed each party" regarding the property division, given that the parties are still in the process of selling their several homes, which seems to support the court's decision to vest Julie with this discretion.

Christopher also argues that the court erred in relying on Julie's appraisal for the marital home, which he claims undervalued it. However, Christopher concedes that the court's reliance on Julie's appraisal was apparently done in a June 2017 proceeding, nearly one year after the court entered its final decree. Christopher filed his notice of appeal before that time, and he has not shown where this issue was preserved or that it falls within the scope of our jurisdiction. We therefore do not consider whether the court's decision to rely on Julie's appraisal to value the marital home was proper.

At trial, Christopher offered a list of the marital personal property. While the list he offered did not include a value of the marital personal property, he contended that, except for jewelry and collector cards, the value of the marital personal property was around $10,000.

Christopher's plea for equality suggests that the court treated income Julie earned during the marriage as her separate property. But Christopher identifies nothing in the record to validate that suggestion.

Christopher claims that the ruling is vague regarding whether the district court awarded Julie half of the inventory's value because it designated the inventory as marital property or because it did so to sanction Christopher for his dishonesty. We disagree. There is no mention of sanctions in the court's findings; rather, they indicate that the court found incredible Christopher's contention that this inventory was not part of the marital estate because it had been sold. We therefore construe the court's findings regarding Christopher's dishonesty as on-the-record credibility determinations related to its assessment of whether the equipment was part of the marital estate, rather than findings to support imposing a sanction.

II. The Post-trial Motion

¶37 Christopher next argues that the district court exceeded its discretion when it denied his post-trial motion, which sought modification of the findings and judgment. See Utah R. Civ. P. 52(b) ("Upon motion of a party filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly."). In particular, he requested the court make findings and rule on the following: (1) the division of marital pictures; (2) the division of $2,000 that was in a joint bank account; (3) an offset in Christopher's favor for approximately $8,200 of business equipment Julie auctioned; (4) rental offsets of the parties' rental homes; and (5) division of other of Julie's retirement benefits. Christopher also asked the court to address its findings in support of its order order disposing of a rule 52(b) motion, "a party must file a notice of appeal or an amended notice of appeal"). As a result, we lack jurisdiction to consider his arguments related to his post-trial motion. See Dennett v. Ferber, 2013 UT App 209, ¶ 4, 309 P.3d 313 (per curiam) (concluding that because the appellant did not file a new or amended notice of appeal after the entry of the order resolving a similar post-trial motion, this court "lack[ed] jurisdiction to resolve any issues raised by" the appellant in the post-trial motion).

Although Christopher filed an objection to Julie's proposed decree on June 13, 2016, he did not include the allegedly pending issues as a basis for an objection.

Christopher includes his challenge to the court's ruling regarding the broken windows in the section of his brief dedicated to the issues we resolve in Part I. But Christopher's challenge is primarily directed toward the adequacy of the court's findings—an issue he raised in his post-trial motion. See generally In re K.F., 2009 UT 4, ¶¶ 61-63, 201 P.3d 985 (requiring appellants to "object to the adequacy of the detail of the trial court's findings before appeal" and to present the issue to the trial court "in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to rule on that issue" (quotation simplified)). For the reasons stated above, we do not have jurisdiction to consider this challenge. To the extent Christopher contends there was insufficient evidence to hold him responsible for the cost to repair two windows, we would have jurisdiction over that challenge, but we reject his argument. Christopher testified that he broke a large picture window when he slipped off a toolbox while trying to gain access to the house. Julie testified that the basement window underneath the picture window was broken at the same time. The parties' testimony, and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, provided sufficient evidence to support the district court's ruling. See generally Choate v. ARS-Fresno LLC, 2016 UT App 249, ¶ 8, 391 P.3d 344 (explaining that an appellate court "will not overturn a verdict on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence so long as some evidence and reasonable inferences support" the fact-finder's findings (quotation simplified)). --------

CONCLUSION

¶41 We affirm the district court's rulings with respect to income imputation, tax exemptions, and personal and real property divisions. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Christopher's appeal to the extent he challenges the district court's denial of his post-trial motion.