Hoidal v. Berry

1

2024 UT App 157

Mari Hoidal, Appellee and Cross-appellant, v. John Berry, Appellant and Cross-appellee.

No. 20220291-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah

October 31, 2024

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Heather Brereton No. 194900847

Steve S. Christensen and Clinton R. Brimhall, Attorneys for Appellant and Cross-appellee

Julie J. Nelson, Kayla Quam, and Skylar Walker, Attorneys for Appellee and Cross-appellant

Judge Michele M. Christiansen Forster authored this Opinion, in which Judges John D. Luthy and Amy J. Oliver concurred.

OPINION

CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, JUDGE:

¶1 John Berry and Mari Hoidal married and later divorced. Both parties appeal from the district court's property division and alimony award. Berry argues the court abused its discretion by valuing the marital estate at the time the parties separated, by crediting Hoidal with the value of phantom stocks that were paid after the parties separated and by refusing to consider certain of Berry's claimed expenses in the alimony calculation. Hoidal challenges the court's alimony calculations, as well as the court's failure to require reimbursement of previous childcare expenses and the denial of her request for attorney fees. We affirm in part, and we reverse and remand the matter in part.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Berry and Hoidal were married in August 2012, and their only child (Child) was born in May 2018. Hoidal "had various assets at the time of the marriage." The parties lived in a home purchased by Hoidal three years before the marriage, and while they were married, Hoidal "paid the mortgage and other costs associated with the home" and "Berry paid for the parties' car payments, car insurance, and some of the parties' joint food expenses." The parties did not have joint credit cards they maintained separate bank accounts, and they kept their finances separate. The only exceptions to the practice of separate finances were those occasions when Hoidal gave money to Berry "to help him pay credit card and other debts and to pay off one of the cars driven by the couple during the marriage."

¶3 Seven months after Child's birth, the parties got into an argument at a restaurant, which ended in Berry driving away and leaving Hoidal and Child stranded at the restaurant. The parties then separated; Hoidal and Child resided with her parents, while Berry continued to live in the marital home until a court order returned possession of the home to Hoidal seven months later.

¶4 Following the separation, Berry began criticizing threatening, and harassing Hoidal and others close to her. Berry went so far as to yell at and spit in the face of Hoidal's father (Dr. Hoidal), and he "repeatedly contacted" Hoidal's employer with accusations "of kidnapping and addiction and indicating his child was in danger." Berry locked Hoidal out of the marital home while the parties were separated, but Hoidal nonetheless paid the mortgage and cared for Child; Berry "did not in any way contribute to the marital estate during separation" and "caused [Hoidal] unnecessary stress and anxiety."

¶5 Hoidal filed for divorce in February 2019. She requested sole physical and legal custody of Child and asked that the district court allow Berry no parent-time, based on serious concerns about his behavior toward Hoidal, her family, and those at her workplace.

¶6 The district court held a hearing on the matter on May 29, 2019, resulting in the issuance of temporary orders. The court indicated that it was "very concerned about what appear[ed] to be significant impairment of [Berry], based upon [a] threat of self-harm, the level of hostility being directed to [Hoidal] and her family, the lengths he [was] going to in order to disparage her and her family, and the concerns expressed by the guardian ad litem." Based on these concerns, the court awarded Hoidal sole physical and legal custody of Child and awarded Berry supervised parent-time. The court ordered Berry "to vacate the marital home" and awarded no alimony at that time to either party but required Berry to pay child support to Hoidal.

¶7 In July 2019, the district court granted Hoidal a temporary restraining order against Berry, limiting Berry's contact with Hoidal and prohibiting him from contacting her parents and sister. That same month, the court issued several additional orders, explicitly noting that "all orders from the May 29, 2019 hearing on this matter remain in full force and effect" unless specifically modified in the temporary restraining order-and nothing pertaining to custody, alimony, or child support was changed therein. After an evidentiary hearing held in September 2019, the court issued additional temporary orders, this time awarding temporary alimony of $1,574 per month to Berry.

¶8 In April 2020, Berry was charged with five counts of violating the restraining order based on his continued harassment of Hoidal and her family, including "emailing fifteen of Dr. Hoidal's employers, co-workers and employees at the University of Utah." And in July 2020, Berry was criminally charged with one count of stalking and one count of violating a pre-trial protective order, based on Dr. Hoidal's report that Berry "refuse[d] to leave [them] alone." Throughout the remainder of that year, Berry continued to harass and threaten Hoidal, her family, and her superiors at work. Because of this continued antagonism, Hoidal's superiors at work were so concerned for Hoidal's safety and mental health that they contemplated moving her into a diminished role at work with reduced responsibility.

¶9 In April 2021, the parties entered into a partial stipulation resolving custody and parent-time, agreeing that a bifurcated decree of divorce should be entered. The district court entered an order dissolving the marriage between Berry and Hoidal, awarding Hoidal sole physical and legal custody of Child subject to Berry's parent-time, maintaining a restraining order against Berry, and reserving all other issues for trial.

¶10 Trial occurred in May and July of 2021, following which the district court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The court determined that based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the marital home "should be valued as of the date of the parties' separation in December 2018." The court's findings supporting this valuation date centered on Hoidal's continued contributions after separation-including paying "all costs" associated with the home, continuing "to work and advance in her company," and performing "all childcare responsibilities both financially and emotionally"-and Berry's corresponding failure to contribute-including failing to "bring income into the marital estate" or "pay any marital expenses," failing to share in any childcare obligations or expenses," and taking "unreasonable and concerning" actions toward Hoidal that caused her "unnecessary stress, anxiety, and fear" and "negatively affected her employment."

¶11 As part of the court's consideration of several financial accounts, it addressed a specific investment account belonging to Hoidal that had been "funded with monies received in phantom stock." The court found that this account was "created after the date of separation with compensation earned after the date of separation" and therefore concluded that Berry had "no interest in this account."

¶12 In relation to Child, Berry was ordered to reimburse Hoidal nearly $17,000 for half of the work-related childcare expenses incurred prior to trial, as well as to pay half of all such expenses going forward. The court also calculated Berry's monthly child support obligation to be $348.

¶13 The court awarded alimony to Berry, who was unemployed at the time of trial and whose "sources of income consisted of unemployment benefits and [temporary] alimony." As part of the alimony determination, the court considered Berry's financial declaration and testimony at trial. The court accepted most of Berry's declared expenses, notwithstanding the fact that some of the listed expenses, such as utilities and health insurance expenses, were expenses that he was not currently paying and despite the fact that he "did not support any of his expenses with supporting documentation other than his rent payment." However, the court refused to consider Berry's child support obligation, attorney fees, and student loan payments because these were "not marital expenses." The court also adjusted some listed expenses downward but actually increased Berry's childcare expense. This all resulted in a total monthly alimony award of $1,707, to continue for "an additional 44 months."

¶14 As to attorney fees, the district court found that "Berry's actions during the pendency of this matter have resulted in some of [Hoidal's] attorney fees." But the court also determined that "Berry does not have the financial ability to pay [Hoidal's] fees." "After consideration of the facts presented and balancing equities in this matter," the court ordered that each party "pay their own attorney fees."

¶15 Ultimately, Berry was awarded nearly $195,000 to account for his share of the equity in the home, his half of two financial accounts deemed to be marital property, and half of Hoidal's 401(k)-each of these assets being valued at the time of the parties' separation. The remaining financial accounts were awarded to Hoidal.

¶16 After the entry of the district court's order, Berry filed a motion requesting additional or amended findings and an amended judgment. Berry raised issues relating to, among other things, the court's decision to value assets as of the date of separation, the court's refusal to consider certain of his expenses in the alimony calculation, and the court's order that he reimburse Hoidal for...