Court Weighs Attorney Fee Waivers in Brianna's Divorce Case

In a pivotal court session on August 26, 2025, the Utah Court of Appeals examined the complexities surrounding attorney fees in the divorce case of State v. Newberry. Central to the discussions was the interpretation of a prenuptial agreement, particularly Articles 2 and 10, which address financial obligations and attorney fees in the event of a divorce.

The court focused on whether the prenuptial agreement's language effectively waived the right to seek attorney fees. The argument presented by the attorney for one party suggested that the last line of Article 2 implied a waiver of such fees, stating that neither party would be required to make payments to the other, except for child support. However, the opposing counsel contended that this interpretation could negate the provisions in Article 10, which explicitly allows for the awarding of attorney fees in cases of enforcement of the agreement.

The court probed deeper into the implications of these articles, questioning how they could coexist without contradicting each other. The discussion highlighted the district court's ruling, which awarded attorney fees based on the prevailing party's success in specific aspects of the case. The court noted that the district court had determined that one party prevailed on the net worth issues but not on the marital property aspects, leading to a nuanced decision on fee allocation.

The judges also examined the district court's discretion in determining the prevailing party, emphasizing that courts have the authority to assess various claims and award fees accordingly. This discretion was underscored by the court's findings that one party had intentionally disposed of assets to manipulate their net worth during the divorce proceedings, raising questions about the fairness of asset valuation.

As the court deliberated, it became clear that the interpretation of the prenuptial agreement and the equitable principles of divorce law would significantly impact the final ruling on attorney fees. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how prenuptial agreements are enforced and interpreted in future divorce proceedings, particularly regarding financial obligations and the awarding of attorney fees. The court's decision is anticipated to clarify the balance between contractual obligations and equitable considerations in divorce cases, providing guidance for similar disputes in the future.