Court of Appeals hears dispute over prenup valuation, expert disclosures in Moyle v. Moyle

The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Moyle v. Moyle (No. 20231097), a family‑law appeal in which the parties dispute how a premarital agreement and trialcourt findings should determine when and how to value each spouse’s net worth and which trial rulings to uphold.

Appellant Jamie Moyle, through counsel Brody Miles, argued the district court erred by allowing a financial expert to testify without producing underlying documents and by applying inconsistent valuation dates for net‑worth calculations. "None of those [underlying documents] were ever provided," Miles told the panel, saying the absence of the underlying data prevented effective cross‑examination and tainted valuation figures the court used. The parties and judges discussed a contested valuation of an interest in Jackson Equity Partners (JEP): the State trial record included competing figures cited by experts, including a $1,700,000 estimate referenced in one expert report and a $350,000 figure elsewhere, creating a disputed arithmetic impact on net‑worth comparisons.

Counsel for appellee Brianna Moyle, Bart Johnson, replied that the expert (Cory Kennedy) regularly provides a standard report referencing relied‑upon documents, that many of the cited source materials are public or in the parties’ possession, and that the disclosure objections were not preserved in the precise Rule 26 posture required for reversal. Johnson said the district court limited speculative testimony during trial and made specific findings about admissible opinions.

The panel also addressed whether the premarital agreement’s text effectively fixed a single valuation date for net worth or left an ambiguity that required remand for further factual development. The trial court found Jamie had "intentionally disposed" of some property after filing for divorce and therefore valued certain items at an earlier date (the parties’ first financial disclosures) to avoid permitting alleged dissipation to affect the net‑worth calculation. Appellant’s counsel argued the agreement’s language is ambiguous and that contract rules should determine intent; appellee’s counsel and the trial judge relied on equitable divorce principles and findings about dissipation to justify the valuation date the court chose.

On attorney fees, the parties disputed whether a premarital provision that limits payments "except as provided" and an Article 10 enforcement clause permitted an award of prevailing‑party fees. The trial court awarded fees to Brianna for prevailing on net‑worth aspects but denied fees tied to marital‑property allocations it found to be a wash. Counsel debated whether the court may parcel fee awards by issue or must make a single prevailing‑party determination.

Counsel also argued bifurcation of the divorce (divorcing first and deferring complex property issues) and whether the district court abused discretion by denying bifurcation. The panel questioned whether bifurcation would shorten or extend litigation and the practical effects of the trial court’s scheduling choices.

The court did not announce a decision from the bench; after argument it took the matter under advisement and said a written opinion would follow.