Vaughan v Romander

Romander appealed the denial of her motion to continue the trial and the final order granting custody of the parties’ child to Vaughn and her visitation rights. The panel, with one dissent s to visitation, affirmed. It held there was no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance as Romander stipulated to the date the custody report would be flied and had been put on notice that custody may be awarded to Vaughan. The panela held that Romander failed to prove clear error on any of the district court’s findings that support the custody award to Vaughan. The majority held the district court obviously deviated from the recommended plan to create predictability and remand to have the judge say this is unnecessary. The dissent argued that the district court failed to explain why it departed from the recommended schedule of the evaluator and would have remanded for entry of a new order. The panel held that there was no error in granting the parties the right of first refusal to provide care when overnight are was needed because there is no right to first refusal and the overnight limitation a accommodates the distance between the parties’ home. The panel denied Vaughn’s motion for attorney fees as the appeal was not an egregious case.

Reller v Argenziano

Reller appealed the supplemental parentage decree arguing she should have been allowed to claim retroactive child support, that Argenziano should have been held in contempt for not paying child support and the support calculation. The panel affirmed. It held that because Argenziano objected to the retroactive support claim and the district court specially conditioned receipt of evidence on resolving the objection, the claim was not tried by consent. It held that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion to amend because the motion was not made unit the day of trial, Reller knew about the retroactive claim yet agreed to a scheduling order which did not include that claim and Argenziano would be prejudiced as she did not conduct discovery or otherwise prepare for the claim. The panel held there was no waiver of claim here as Reller forfeited her claim by inaction and thus the statutory bar on waiver did not apply. The panel affirmed the calculation holding there was no need to make a finding of voluntary unemployment before imputing income, that Reller failed to rebut Argenziano’s testimony on his employment and salary history and the use of government wage statistics was appropriate in the circumstances. The panel finally held the was no clear error in the district court’s determination that Argenziano was unable to pay support for two months and thus declined to hold him in contempt.

Cheney v Hinton, Burdick Hall & Spilker, PLLC

Cheney appealed summary judgment to Hinton in their breach of contract and bad faith case. The panel affirmed. It held under the plain language of the contract, Hinton had no duty to insure title passed form sellers to Cheney, fulfilled their obligations and thus did not commit bad faith and that Hinton was entitled to attorney fees on appeal under the parties’ agreement.

Zisumbo v Ogden Regional Medical Center

Zisumbo appealed the order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that under Utah’s liberal pleading regime, the amended complaint alleged that Center miscoded his reason for dismissal, that Zisumbo applied for positions but that “something” prevented interviews and the only reasonable inference is the miscoding was that something which was sufficient to plead causation.

Mellor v Wasatch Crest Insurance Company in Liquidation

Mellor appealed an order declaring an objection to a notice of denial of claim untimely and denying her claim priority status. The panel reversed in part and affirmed in part. It held that under the totality of eh liquidator’s filings in the summary judgment proceeding, attaching the notice of denial as an exhibit was sufficient to give notice to Mellor. It held that Mellor’s filings in the same proceeding were sufficient to constitute an objection as they addressed the merit of the denial. Thus the objection was timely. It finally held that the priority ruling was correct as Medicaid covered all the expenses for Mellor’s son and the claim field by Mellor was for her son not a government agency.

Judd v Irvine

Irvine appealed the stalking order entered against him. The panel affirmed. It held that Irvine failed to preserve or brief two of his arguments, that the district court did not error in finding at least two incidents and that a reasonable person threatened with harm would be put in fear for his or her safety.

Peck v Polanco

Peck appealed eth denial of his petition to transfer custody of the parties’ children to him. The apneal affirmed. It held that because it was close case, there was no abuse of discretion in the district court declining to follow the evaluator’s recommendation and instead weigh the factors and conclude Polanco should retain custody of the children in the Dominican Republic.