Dennis Michael Goggin v. Tammy Rae Goggin, 2013 UT 16

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court reviewed a divorce court’s awards of fees, costs, sanctions, and marital property in prolonged divorce proceedings involving contemptuous conduct, discovery violations, alleged asset dissipation, and disputed property contributions. The court upheld awards related to a receiver and forensic accountants but held that attorney-fee and cost awards could not exceed amounts caused by the sanctionable conduct or rest on an unenforceable oral contract. It also addressed the limits of the court’s discretion regarding dissipated assets and credits for separate property and managerial contributions.

Holdings

1. The divorce court acted within its discretion in awarding Tammy the fees and costs she incurred for appointing a receiver and hiring forensic accountants because those expenses were caused by Dennis's contemptuous conduct and discovery violations.
2. A court may not award attorney fees or out-of-pocket costs as sanctions in an amount exceeding the fees, costs, or actual injury caused by the opposing party's sanctionable conduct.
3. The divorce court exceeded its discretion to the extent any portion of its award was based on Dennis's breach of the alleged oral contract concerning the Riverbend Property, because the Supreme Court had held that no enforceable contract existed.
4. When a spouse's obstruction prevents the court from determining the precise amount of dissipated marital assets, the court must estimate, to the best of its ability, the maximum amount that may have been dissipated and use that estimate in equitably distributing the marital estate; it may not award the entire estimated amount to the other spouse as a contempt punishment.
5. The divorce court erred by failing to consider whether Dennis was entitled to a credit or setoff for separate property he contributed to the purchase and development of the Riverbend Property.
6. The divorce court acted within its discretion in denying Dennis a credit or setoff for managerial services and claimed rent because his request for equitable relief was barred by the unclean-hands doctrine.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the divorce court properly awarded Tammy fees and costs associated with a receiver and forensic accountants as sanctions for Dennis's contemptuous and discovery-related conduct.
2. Whether the divorce court could award Tammy attorney fees and out-of-pocket costs exceeding the amount of actual loss caused by Dennis's sanctionable conduct.
3. Whether the divorce court could base any portion of its award on Dennis's alleged breach of an oral contract that the Utah Supreme Court had previously held unenforceable.
4. Whether the divorce court erred by awarding Tammy the full amount of assets Dennis allegedly dissipated without estimating the maximum amount dissipated and crediting Dennis with his share of the marital assets.
5. Whether the divorce court erred by failing to consider Dennis's claim for a credit or setoff for separate property contributed to the Riverbend Property.
6. Whether the divorce court properly denied Dennis a credit or setoff for managerial services and claimed rent based on the unclean-hands doctrine.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded