[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",5974936,"mediaKeyId","5829776-a1b2ff0c6123cf81a2b881c12807a189","parentId",5829776,"title","Appeals court hears arguments on expert disclosure, alimony and property tracing in Paulson divorce appeal","audioSeconds",3140,"startMs",4460000,"endMs",7600000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5829776-a1b2ff0c6123cf81a2b881c12807a189&start=4460&end=7600","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5829776-a1b2ff0c6123cf81a2b881c12807a189/thumbnail_4460000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5974936/Utah/Appeals-court-hears-arguments-on-expert-disclosure-alimony-and-property-tracing-in-Paulson-divorce-appeal","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5974936-545a4d5d0f73522014bef09bcd3aca36/orig.mp4?Expires=1770511831&Signature=IaSGFigmQjB5CfGpAszqe71m~hoEXnHOMq3y6BWsSVtjacU4PiY2zgVFxh-1Io0DSNuhRLPp5rZ3HIEZPWRgUFyj0ep3gJHrBXTVR6u84HCRaRxviKA4M2OlXNVYKWbJDQ9xFLnKKgvV-cxcPWvP8TmSCIHjSuKPp90bnl8ggMAaFs-INv-eep-WZIaKFo4tCw~Dokn8hmdeu7WeKvM-x4nJEvHiaGBE~T-jrIlwI0VAnE7ubFpX5Cfm2s103gizDQSYyAnI6d0RKnbWQphsxBhd28eYT2Mukbxb-7CDbOG5WHq2n--Ibq26nyI9jUNJo1~U7qZvcnk~7h8eEQqgkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Utah Court of Appeals","date","2025-09-25T00:00:00Z","article","The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Christopher Paulson v. Trisha (Patricia) Paulson, addressing (1) whether the family court correctly excluded a rebuttal expert report under Rule 26, (2) whether the exclusion effectively foreclosed Christopher’s alimony claim, and (3) whether the trial court correctly applied California transmutation and exhaustion-tracing principles to multiple property-summary-judgment motions arising under a prenuptial agreement.

Appellant Christopher Paulson, through counsel Rodney Parker, argued the expert-disclosure rule is ambiguous as applied to rebuttal experts and that the purported harm from a late or incomplete disclosure was largely self-inflicted and curable by reopening expert discovery. \"The rule seems to suggest you can't disclose until the work is done,\" Parker told the panel, but he added counsel frequently disclose expected topics for rebuttal before the number-crunching is finished. Parker urged the court to reverse the exclusion because the late material arrived weeks into expert work, the trial was not imminent and any prejudice could have been remedied.

Counsel for Trisha Paulson, Julie Nelson, said the trial court correctly excluded the expert (identified in argument as Townsend) because the disclosure contained topics rather than the Rule 26-required summaries of opinions and relied on authorities that treat a late, noncompliant disclosure as prejudicial when it would require reopening discovery. Nelson noted the trial court found the disclosure failed to provide Townsend’s opinions and that Townsend had adequate information available earlier; she said the court’s harmlessness analysis was not an abuse of discretion and cited Bodell, RJW Media and Corollis as precedents addressing prejudice and reopening discovery.

On property division, the appeal concerns roughly 19 separate summary-judgment rulings. Parker argued that the prenuptial agreement’s language did not automatically convert property titled in both spouses’ names into community property and that proceeds and traceable separate funds should remain Christopher’s separate property. He asked the panel to require the trial court to apply standard traceability rules rather than a year-by-year exhaustion analysis.

Nelson replied that the prenuptial agreement expressly subjects transactions to a transmutation standard and that, under the California authorities the court relied on (including Bovino and Ciprari cited in argument), the transmutation statute (California Family Code § 852) applies to transfers into joint title and the joint-title presumptions under section 2581 follow only after any required transmutation analysis. She told the panel the trial court performed permissible exhaustion-tracing and that several properties were directly traced to separate funds or otherwise resolved on summary judgment.

The panel questioned whether appellants had preserved all transmutation arguments across each property, and whether the record supported exhaustion tracing in each instance. Counsel acknowledged that some transmutation arguments had been presented for a subset of properties, and the parties disputed whether a waiver occurred when transmutation was not raised repeatedly for each asset.

The trial-court record also contains a motion to reconsider an alimony-related decision, a disqualification motion filed after that hearing, and multiple rulings on tracing and property characterization. The panel concluded argument by saying it would take the case under advisement and issue a written decision.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20231083-CWS v. Montgomery audio file","oneSentenceSummary","The Court of Appeals reviewed challenges to a family-court ruling that excluded a rebuttal expert on alimony and granted multiple property summary judgments, with heated argument over whether a prenuptial agreement, transmutation and tracing of funds controlled title and division.","taxTitle","Utah Court of Appeals Live Stream, Utah Appellate Court, Utah Judicial Branch, Utah","taxId",76036,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},5974941,"Court of Appeals hears dispute over deferred compensation, summary judgment and fee awards in CWS v. Montgomery",1070,749000,1819000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5829776-a1b2ff0c6123cf81a2b881c12807a189&start=749&end=1819","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5829776-a1b2ff0c6123cf81a2b881c12807a189/thumbnail_749000.jpg","/articles/5974941/Utah/Court-of-Appeals-hears-dispute-over-deferred-compensation-summary-judgment-and-fee-awards-in-CWS-v-Montgomery","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5974941-be0f9240ae3442a580bf2d0888dc48f1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770511831&Signature=H18YilEEX6VKUE8tv2PbAWZp3O8TUwb1qxVxXpcI5rjkM7wRfVvr438dUAzFiZ7leKAJo-sYHyxO18LJLYorBZ759HXXQ53OjkHf~WTJlWCz~h4nz9nprm-YvWD-efMK0xhkt4IBy0QG3Zxz~OpQUkWMUv3M7bNgnIfmFzgjib09GYwq4ZckTgH3-QWWGG2tZC0yos3XgTe2XwQaLQPS~QZ601mCn3dqaIPuXTv3EHuJR8q9BUlItaqmtzRHkq3jWZNNfnfRgHCbQspQKsJvcvOGWVEXPYxuDC8daGhi5A15VkWstILIUmVBU4t8atNV~ylU8du~Y1aooRxee~vfCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A three-judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in CWS v. Montgomery on whether the district court correctly entered summary judgment and an amended judgment after a jury verdict that split relief between the parties. Appellant CWS contends the district court mischaracterized its litigation position, overlooked disputed facts and incorrectly allowed Scott Montgomery to recover deferred compensation he allegedly accrued without required owner approval.

The dispute centers on an operating agreement for the business. CWS told the panel that the agreement’s reserved-actions provision —identified at oral argument as section 5.1 and Exhibit B to the operating agreement—limited a manager’s ability to change terms of employment or compensation without approval of a majority ownership interest, and that Montgomery never obtained that approval. \"The operating agreement makes clear he was not allowed to change either the terms of employment or the terms of compensation,\" said Beth Ranshaw, counsel for CWS. Ranshaw told the panel Montgomery had only 45% ownership during the period at issue and had no contractual authority to unilaterally defer salary or bonuses; she argued the district court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to Montgomery on his counterclaim.

Montgomery’s counsel, Eric Olsen, urged affirmance. Olsen said the manager role carried broad financial discretion, that the timing language in Exhibit B was for the manager’s protection and could be waived, and that CWS failed to preserve many of the legal theories it advances on appeal. Olsen also urged the court to reverse only limited parts of the district court’s rulings: vacating prejudgment interest and attorney-fee awards while affirming the summary judgment on the counterclaim.

The parties disputed several legal points before the panel: (1) preservation —whether CWS presented the precise legal theory below (substantial-performance and the \"first-breach\" concept); (2) contract interpretation —whether the operating agreement unambiguously prohibited deferral of compensation or whether an ambiguity required factfinding; (3) damages math and the amended judgment —why the district court entered separate line-item judgments for amounts favorable to each side instead of a single net judgment; and (4) prejudgment interest and attorney fees —whether the award of prejudgment interest was supported by a record that identifies dates of loss and the principal amount, and whether the court properly applied the \"flexible and reasoned\" approach to determine the prevailing party for fee-shifting.

CWS argued that the district court’s summary-judgment order misstated the nature of CWS’s challenge by saying CWS disputed only the amount owed and not the fact of damages. Ranshaw said the record contained briefing and oral argument that disputed both fact and amount, and that factual disputes should have precluded summary judgment. \"This occurred both in the briefing and at oral argument,\" Ranshaw said, arguing the district court’s mischaracterization was an independent basis for reversal.

Ranshaw also emphasized the operating agreement’s reserved-action list, citing the provision’s limits on manager actions (purchase or lease obligations above specified dollar thresholds, capital expenditures in excess of stated amounts, and similar constraints). Ranshaw told the panel that, read as an integrated instrument with section 9.5’s writing requirement for changes, the agreement did not permit a manager to create a multi-year unpaid compensation obligation that effectively became a multimillion-dollar company liability without owner approval. She also raised statute-of-limitations points, arguing that if each missed payroll was a discrete breach then some claims were stale under the six-year contract limitations period identified in argument.

Olsen countered that CWS had not developed several of these arguments below; he emphasized that CWS presented only two paragraphs on the theory that one breach caused another and therefore preserved little for appeal. He urged the court to treat the contract language as affording the manager discretion over financial management and to view any timing language as primarily protective of the manager’s right to be paid, not as mandating immediate payments. Olsen also told the panel the jury adopted a mathematical approach to damages and that the judgment’s line items reflected stipulated amounts and jury choices, which made netting the two awards less straightforward. \"When you give the jury something and leave it 100% to their discretion, you can't come back and second guess it,\" Olsen said about prejudgment interest questions.

Both sides pressed the panel on whether the amended judgment should have consolidated amounts into a single net judgment and whether the district court had sufficient findings to support its attorney-fee award. CWS told the panel a net judgment would have clarified who prevailed and simplified the fee determination; Montgomery argued the district court acted within its discretion and that appellate courts may correct only clear abuses of discretion.

At the close of argument the panel said it would take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision. No further action was taken in the courtroom.

","The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in an appeal over whether a company manager could unilaterally defer salary and bonuses, whether the district court mischaracterized the parties' arguments, and whether prejudgment interest and attorney-fee awards should be vacated or recalculated.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appeals court hears arguments on expert disclosure, alimony and property tracing in Paulson divorce appeal

Court of Appeals hears dispute over deferred compensation, summary judgment and fee awards in CWS v. Montgomery