Appeals court weighs late expert disclosures and property tracing under prenup in Paulson divorce appeal

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in Paulson v. Paulson over two central areas: whether the trial court properly excluded a late rebuttal expert opinion in an alimony dispute, and whether the trial court correctly distributed property under a prenuptial agreement that the parties and the judge analyzed using California transmutation and tracing doctrines.

Rodney Parker, counsel for Christopher Paulson, argued that the rebuttal expert disclosure for Townsend was a practical use of Rule 26’s allowance for “opinions expected” when rebuttal work must be done quickly. Parker said the timing — roughly three weeks between disclosure and the fuller report — and the realities of litigation during the COVID era meant counsel had limited time to obtain subpoena returns and finalize an expert report. He emphasized that the alleged harm to Trisha Paulson from the late disclosure was self-inflicted because her counsel had elected to file a summary-judgment motion rather than depose or insist on a full expert report first. “That harm can be remedied,” Parker told the panel, arguing courts should avoid excluding opinions where prejudice can be cured by a deposition or limited reopening of discovery.

Julie Nelson, counsel for…