Rosser v. Rosser

2021 UT 71 (2021) · Supreme Court of Utah · December 23, 2021 · No. 20190320

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether deceptive conduct during divorce litigation constituted statutory contempt under Utah Code section 78B-6-301(4). The court held that the statute reaches deceit committed in respect to a court or its proceedings, not only deceit directed at the court. However, it concluded that the district court's findings and conclusions were insufficient to support the contempt order and remanded for further proceedings.

Court
Supreme Court of Utah
Writing for the Court
Justice Petersen; Chief Justice Durrant; Associate Chief Justice Lee; Justice Himonas; Justice Pearce
Jurisdiction
Utah
Decision date
December 23, 2021
Docket number
20190320
Procedural posture
Holly Rosser petitioned for certiorari from the Utah Court of Appeals' decision vacating most of a district court contempt order against Ronald Rosser. The Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether the court of appeals properly interpreted and applied Utah Code section 78B-6-301(4).
Standard of review
On certiorari, the Utah Supreme Court reviews the court of appeals' decision for correctness and gives no deference to its legal conclusions.
Precedential value
Published Utah Supreme Court opinion; precedential
Parties
Holly Rebecca Rosser v. Ronald Lee Rosser
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

divorcefamily law procedurecontemptstatutory interpretationremedies

Practice areas

family lawcivil procedurestatutory interpretationcontemptremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Utah Court of Appeals improperly reached the interpretation of Utah Code section 78B-6-301(4) despite alleged lack of preservation or waiver.
  2. Whether deceit under Utah Code section 78B-6-301(4) is limited to deceit directed at the court or may include deceit committed in respect to a court or its proceedings.
  3. Whether the district court made sufficient factual findings and legal conclusions to support Ronald's contempt adjudication under section 78B-6-301(4).

Holdings

  1. The Utah Court of Appeals properly reached the meaning and application of Utah Code section 78B-6-301(4). Ronald preserved the relevant issue by responding in his reply brief to Holly's new argument concerning the Contempt Statute.
  2. Deceit under subsection (4) is not limited to conduct directed at the court. Deceit may constitute statutory contempt when committed in respect to a court or its proceedings, including conduct that undermines the court's authority, misuses the authority or proceedings of the court, or hampers the administration of justice.
  3. The district court's contempt order could not stand because its findings that Ronald engaged in deliberate deceit did not sufficiently establish that the deceit was in respect to the court or its proceedings, and the court made no corresponding legal conclusions under the Contempt Statute.

Key quotations

Under the plain language of the statute, deceitful conduct may be contemptuous not only when it is directed at the court, but when it is committed “in respect to a court or its proceedings.” (¶3)
In other words, the deceit must somehow undermine the authority of the court, misuse the authority or proceedings of the court, or hamper the administration of justice. (¶57)
Rather, to be contemptuous, deceitful conduct in respect to court proceedings must fall within the boundaries of what is generally considered to be contemptuous behavior, in that it undermines the authority of the court, misuses the authority or proceedings of the court, or hampers the administration of justice in some way. (¶61)

Factual background

After more than twenty-five years of marriage, Holly and Ronald Rosser entered into a written settlement agreement providing that each would pay half of their $29,902.21 unpaid 2015 tax liability. Holly paid her share, but Ronald did not disclose his failure to pay and proceeded with an amended tax return and stipulated divorce decree that assigned the tax liability to Holly and gave her any resulting refund. Holly instead received an IRS notice of an outstanding debt, and the district court found that Ronald had deliberately deceived her and held him in contempt.

Procedural history

In the divorce action, the district court found Ronald in contempt based on deliberate deceit concerning his failure to pay his share of the parties' 2015 tax liability and awarded Holly damages, attorney fees, and interest. The Utah Court of Appeals held that Ronald's conduct did not constitute statutory contempt because it was directed at Holly rather than the court, and it vacated most of the contempt order. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' vacatur of most of the order, rejected its narrow interpretation of the contempt statute, and remanded for further proceedings.

Remand instructions

The district court must determine whether Ronald's deceitful conduct constitutes contempt under Utah Code section 78B-6-301(4). If it finds contempt, it must make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the opinion. The district court may take additional evidence in its discretion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…