Boyce v. Goble

2 Citing cases

  1. Diener v. Diener

    2004 UT App. 314 (Utah Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 18 times
    Noting that, while a court "is certainly empowered to consider the circumstances surrounding an existing stipulation when considering a petition to modify . . ., the law was intended to give the courts power to disregard the stipulations or agreements of the parties . . . and enter judgment for such alimony . . . as appears reasonable, and to thereafter modify such judgments when change of circumstances justifies it, regardless of attempts of the parties to control the matter by contract" (quotation simplified)

    However, we review the district court's decision for correctness to the extent it involves questions of statutory interpretation.Ball v. Peterson, 912 P.2d 1006, 1009 (Utah Ct.App. 1996) (alteration in original) (quoting Woodward v. Woodward, 709 P.2d 393, 394 (Utah 1985)); see also Boyce v. Goble, 2000 UT App 237, ¶ 9, 8 P.3d 1042 ("`"`The determination of the trial court that there [has or has not] been a substantial change of circumstances . . . is presumed valid,'" and we review the ruling under an abuse of discretion standard.'" (alterations in original) (citations omitted)).

  2. Spall–Goldsmith v. Goldsmith

    2012 UT App. 302 (Utah Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    Moreover, this court has consistently interpreted the definition of joint physical custody as requiring both elements. See, e.g., Boyce v. Goble, 2000 UT App 237, ¶ 21, 8 P.3d 1042 (discussing “a bright line rule to determine if custody is joint or sole” that requires both a percentage requirement of overnight stays and that both parents contribute to expenses beyond child support for joint physical custody); Rehn, 1999 UT App 41, ¶ 17, 974 P.2d 306 (requiring use of a joint custody worksheet when the “[father] had custody of the children over 25% of the time and, in addition to his support obligation, contributed to the overnight expenses of the children” (emphasis added)); Udy v. Udy, 893 P.2d 1097, 1100 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (analyzing whether the joint custody worksheet was properly applied by reviewing the percent of time father had custody of his child in addition to father's payment of expenses beyond his child support obligations). In Udy v. Udy, 893 P.2d 1097 (Utah Ct.App.1995), and Rehn v. Rehn, 1999 UT App 41, 974 P.2d 306, the court applied a previous version of the statute—the Uniform Civil Liability for Support Act, seeUtah Code Ann