Godfrey v. Godfrey

1

2024 UT App 156

Amanda Godfrey, Appellee, v. Randy Godfrey, Appellant.

No. 20210871-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah

October 31, 2024

Third District Court, Silver Summit Department The Honorable Teresa L. Welch No. 184500190

Lauren Forsyth, Attorney for Appellant

Emily Adams and Rachel Phillips Ainscough, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge Michele M. Christiansen Forster authored this Opinion, in which Judges David N. Mortensen and Ryan D. Tenney concurred.

OPINION

CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, JUDGE:

¶1 In late 2018, Amanda Godfrey filed for divorce from Randy Godfrey. A three-day trial on issues related to the division of the marital estate, alimony, and child support began in June 2021. Thereafter, the trial court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered a final decree of divorce. Randy^[1]now appeals the trial court's ruling and challenges the court's findings in various respects arguing that the court abused its discretion. Because we discern no abuse of the court's discretion on any of the points raised by Randy on appeal, we affirm.

BACKGROUND^[2]

Pretrial Proceedings

¶2 Amanda and Randy married in October 2006, and together they have three children, all of whom are still minors. During their marriage, the couple primarily resided in Summit County, and they purchased three properties that they refer to as (1) the Snowview Property, (2) the Oakridge Property and (3) the St. George Property.

¶3 In September 2018, the parties separated, and the following month Amanda filed a petition for divorce, citing "irreconcilable differences." Randy then filed an answer and counter-petition for divorce.

¶4 The matter came before a domestic relations commissioner to discuss competing motions for temporary orders that had been filed by the parties. Following that hearing, the commissioner ordered that one of the couple's savings accounts, which had "an approximate balance of $170,071.14," be divided "equally," and the parties were to "use their respective share" of those funds "for their respective attorney fees and expert fees." Thereafter, Randy filed an objection to the commissioner's recommendation. Due to various scheduling conflicts, a hearing on Randy's objection had to be rescheduled, and the issue eventually was set to be "addressed in the parties' trial."

¶5 The parties were able to reach a settlement concerning their three properties prior to trial: Amanda would retain the St. George Property, and Randy would keep the other two-the Snowview Property and the Oakridge Property. But even though Amanda and Randy had decided who would retain "possession of the properties," they had not yet determined "what the equity would be," and they agreed that the "equitable distribution would be determined at the time of trial." Before trial, Randy sold the Snowview Property for $1,050,000.

¶6 In early 2020, Randy asserted the matter was moving more slowly than he would like and requested that the trial court "bifurcate the divorce from the remaining issues in the divorce proceeding." The court granted Randy's motion and thereafter entered a bifurcated decree of divorce. The issues that remained "unresolved" and were certified for trial included child support, alimony, property valuation, debts and liabilities, insurance, taxes, and attorney fees.^[3]

¶7 In March 2021, the trial court held a scheduling conference in anticipation of trial, which was supposed to begin the next month. At the beginning of the conference, the court informed the parties that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial "would not be able to occur in person." Each side requested that the trial be postponed in hopes that an in-person trial could eventually be scheduled. The court granted the parties' request and, after settling on new trial dates, the court turned to "a few of the logistics" that needed to be discussed.

¶8 One of the issues that would be addressed at trial was the equitable distribution of the parties' three properties. Amanda indicated that because "so much time" had passed since the inception of the litigation, she would "like to get some updated appraisals" for the Oakridge Property and the St. George Property and she wanted to use her own appraiser for such appraisals.^[4]Randy "slightly" objected to this request. He explained that while he had no objection to getting an updated appraisal on the Oakridge Property using the same appraiser that had conducted the earlier appraisal, he was "hesitant to . . . start introducing other appraisers" because doing so could potentially lead to "further disputes regarding appraisal prices." He also indicated that he had "no objection" to getting an appraisal on the St. George Property using a new appraiser because that property had never actually been appraised and because of the location of the property. And if they were getting any updated appraisals, Randy asked that the appraisers also "give their opinion of what the value" of the properties would have been on two additional dates: December 2019, when the parties "made a final agreement on who would be receiving what property," and April 2020, when the bifurcated decree was entered.

¶9 Given the arguments of the parties, the trial court stated it would "permit the expert witness to be substituted," meaning that Amanda could use a different appraiser than the one she had previously disclosed and that it would allow "both sides to submit updated expert reports." The court stated that this decision was based on Utah case law that indicates that, when considering an equitable distribution of property, courts should look to "values based upon the date of the decree," but that due to the delays in this case, and the postponement of the trial, it would be unable to do so without updated appraisals. The court also acknowledged that the parties could, of course, "argue at trial whether or not [the court] should deviate from" valuing the properties based on the date of the decree. Based on this, the court also found that Randy had made a "fair request" regarding the additional appraisal dates and instructed the parties to provide appraisals related to the properties' values as of both December 2019 and April 2020.

¶10 During the scheduling conference, the trial court also instructed the parties that the "direct examination of witnesses" would be "done by affidavit" and submitted to the court prior to trial.

The Trial

¶11 The trial court commenced a three-day bench trial in June 2021. As they had been instructed, the parties submitted the direct examinations of their witnesses through affidavits before the trial began. We briefly describe the evidence presented at trial that is relevant to this appeal.

¶12 In his affidavit, Randy testified that his primary source of income, both before and during the marriage, had been derived from his landscaping and snow removal business, High Country Lawn Care & Snow Removal (High Country), which he started prior to the marriage in 1998. Evidence was then submitted to the court indicating that prior to the parties' marriage High Country had a value of $238,850.38. In 2019, Randy sold High Country for $1,300,000, giving Amanda $20,000 of the proceeds and keeping the remainder for himself.

¶13 Through her affidavit, Amanda testified that she primarily worked in the home during the marriage and that she contributed to Randy's business even though she "received no income for [her] work at High Country." During trial, Amanda provided various details and evidence that demonstrated her work and contributions toward the success of High Country, stating that she would handle tasks related to "payroll," "invoicing," and "pick[ing] up" and "drop[ping] off" supplies. Amanda considered it to be "a family business," and she testified that she was willing to do "anything that really needed to be done."

¶14 To further demonstrate her contributions to High Country, Amanda submitted copies of various text messages between her and Randy discussing aspects of the business. In several of these messages, Randy instructed Amanda to "update" client accounts, to "[s]top services" for certain clients, what services to "[a]dd to [the] contract" for other clients, and how much to charge each client for the work that was done. And during trial, when presented with these messages, Randy acknowledged they were "work-related," although he tried to argue that Amanda only began doing this work for High Country "after [they] were separated."

¶15 Because Amanda did not earn a steady income during the marriage, the trial court also received evidence related to her earning capacity. To that end, Randy submitted a "vocational assessment" from December 2019, which concluded that Amanda "would be able to earn an annual income of $33,080 in the Park City/Salt Lake City, Utah labor market." There was also evidence that, from time to time, Amanda would receive funds from a trust titled "Robert H. Davis Properties, LLC" (the Family Trust), which were essentially "[t]rust assets that constitute a loan on [Amanda's] inheritance." Furthermore, Amanda testified that, in October 2020, she started "Recharge Retreats," a business that offered clients relaxing weekend getaways. It was not until February 2021, however, that Amanda was able to host her "first paid retreat." But due to the overhead costs, Amanda indicated that she "actually lost money" in the endeavor.

¶16 According to the parties, they were also able to obtain additional income during their marriage by renting out their properties. While the parties' divorce was pending, they did, at various times, continue to rent out these properties.

¶17 The trial court also received evidence concerning the value of the parties' three properties, the possession of which...