Completed Cases:
- Hartwig v. Johnsen, WL 2649480, 608 Utah Adv. Rep. 3, 2008 UT 40 (Utah 2008): The trial court erroneously applied a higher legal standard, requiring that the relationship between an attorney and client be "irretrievably broken" in order for an attorney’s withdrawal to be justified. This is not the correct legal standard. The correct legal standard for determining whether withdrawal of counsel is justified is whether the attorney had good cause to withdraw.
- Nelson v. Nelson, 2006 WL 1109782, 2006 UT App 166 (Utah App. 2006): The issue revolved around the definition of, “separation”, when used in, "separation from the military", in light of a divorce decree's provision granting a decrease in alimony upon, “separation”.
- Bishop v. Quintana, 2005 WL 3131587, 2005 UT App 509 (Utah App. 2005)
- Case v. Case, 103 P.3d 171, 513 Utah Adv. Rep. 3, 2004 UT App 42 (Utah App. 2004): The issue was the conditions under which the trial court could modify a child support (divorce) order, from another state. The Court of Appeals held that, trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because under UIFSA, a Utah court cannot establish, modify, or enforce a foreign support order unless the petitioner is a nonresident of Utah.
- Hardy v. Hardy, 776 P. 2d 917 (Utah App. 1989)
Pending Cases:
- Davis v. Davis, UT App, Case No. 20100238: The issues on appeal include: The effect of a prior bankruptcy in modifying divorce support orders; the fact that there was a prior trial which considered that bankruptcy, which should have excluded the more recent changes (res judicata – claims exclusion); how far back can retroactive support be ordered; and, if there has been a history of prior modifications, how far back can the court go in searching for changed circumstances.
