Family Law Cases
Show: 1 day 1 week 1 month All
Custom (decided): –
Sort: Newest first A–Z
Clear all
Coverage since January 20, 2026
✉️ New decisions, briefed in your inbox every morning — subscribe to Daily Case Law, free →

Family Law

UtahAttorney FeesCivil ProcedureFamily Law
Court of Appeals of Utah
Uncategorized

Paulson v. Paulson — Expert Exclusion Was Harmless and Premarital Agreement Could Not Bar Statutory Attorney Fees in High-Asset Divorce

/

The Utah Court of Appeals reversed an expert exclusion and attorney fees denial in a high-asset divorce arising from a California-law premarital agreement, holding that a technically deficient expert disclosure was harmless where the disclosing party promptly provided a full report and offered deposition access, and that a premarital agreement’s separate-property clause cannot waive a spouse’s right to attorney fees under Utah Code § 81-1-203(1).

UtahAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureFamily Law
Court of Appeals of Utah
Uncategorized

Christensen v. Christensen — District Court Must Hold Hearing and Apply Independent Review to Commissioner’s Child Support Recommendation

/

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a post-decree minivan enforcement order because ordering payment of lost equity fell within the four corners of the divorce decree, but reversed a child support arrearage ruling because the district court refused to hold an evidentiary hearing mandated by Utah R. Civ. P. 108(d)(2) and applied abuse-of-discretion review instead of the independent assessment required by rule 108(f).

UtahContract InterpretationFamily Law
Court of Appeals of Utah
Uncategorized

Schmidt v. Schmidt — Three Plausible Interpretations of a Divorce Mortgage-Payment Provision Compel Remand for an Evidentiary Hearing

/

The Utah Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s order enforcing a post-divorce mortgage-payment obligation, holding that Provision 2 of the parties’ Modification supports at least three reasonable interpretations—property-specific, region-limited, and location-neutral—and is therefore ambiguous as a matter of law, requiring remand for an evidentiary hearing on the parties’ intent before the provision can be enforced against Stephen Schmidt.

Scroll to Top