Appeals court hears Moyle v. Moyle dispute over prenup enforcement, expert disclosures and net‑worth valuation

The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument in Moyle v. Moyle (No. 20231097), a multi‑issue divorce appeal that contested how a prenuptial agreement was applied, whether a party’s financial expert met disclosure obligations, and how the trial court chose the valuation date for net‑worth calculations.

Appellant Jamie Moyle, represented by Brody Miley, argued the district court erred by admitting expert opinion evidence without production of the expert’s underlying documents and data, by selecting an improper date to calculate net worth, and by awarding limited prevailing‑party attorney fees to the respondent, Brianna Moyle. Bart Johnson argued for Brianna and defended the trial court’s factual findings and discretionary rulings.

Expert disclosure and admissibility

Jamie’s counsel argued the parties did not receive underlying data cited in the opposing expert’s report (identified in the transcript as exhibits and footnotes referencing assessor values, Zillow pages and tax records). Counsel said the expert, identified in the record as Corey Kennedy, relied on documents and valuations that were not produced in discovery and that the court therefore lacked a reliable basis under Utah Rule of Evidence 702 and the discovery framework of Rule 26 to admit those opinions. The appellant pointed to divergent valuations in the record — a figure of roughly $1,700,000.00 attributed to an assessed market value of a business interest (Jackson Equity Partners, or JEP) and a $350,000 figure tied to the transaction price — and argued the court accepted numbers without letting the defense test the underlying documents.

Respondent’s counsel said Kennedy has prepared many reports in other cases, that his standard report cites underlying sources, and that opposing counsel had the same public records available (for example, assessor values and publicly available tax records). Bart Johnson also emphasized that the defense did not preserve a Rule 26 complaint with a clear, continuing discovery objection in the trial court; he characterized the argument as raised late on appeal and urged deference to the district court’s discretion. The trial judge’s rulings, Johnson said, limited speculative testimony and the court struck or excluded opinion testimony it found speculative.

Valuation date, net worth and alleged dissipation

A central dispute concerned the proper date to calculate the parties’ net worth under the prenuptial agreement’s net‑worth payment provision. The district court chose an earlier date — the parties’ first financial disclosures (August 2021) — and concluded it would be inequitable to value assets at trial after findings that the husband had engaged in voluntary unemployment and post‑filing transfers and disposals. The appellant argued the prenuptial agreement’s language is ambiguous on valuation date and that, under contract principles, the ambiguity requires remand or further factfinding rather than overlaying equitable divorce doctrines that the court applied. The respondent argued the court permissibly exercised discretion, citing cases that allow alternative valuation dates when parties dissipate assets.

Attorney fees and the prenup

The parties also disputed whether Article 2 of the prenuptial agreement waived post‑marriage payments other than child support and whether Article 10’s prevailing‑party clause preserved a right to attorney fees in enforcement litigation. The trial court awarded Brianna attorney fees tied to a net‑worth award (about $600,000 in the court’s findings) but declined to award fees for the broader marital‑property dispute, finding no clear prevailing party on those claims. Appellant argued the contract language and the court’s allocations were inconsistent; respondent argued the court made specific, reviewable findings and did not abuse its discretion.

Bifurcation and procedural rulings

Moyle sought bifurcation to separate the marital‑property litigation from an immediate divorce decree; the trial court denied bifurcation, with the court noting the complex financial issues and opting to schedule a prompt consolidated trial. Counsel debated whether bifurcation would have narrowed issues or instead prolonged litigation; the appeals panel heard arguments that trial courts have broad discretion on bifurcation.

Math and valuation issues raised on appeal

Appellant challenging valuation calculations pointed to what counsel described as math errors and double counting in the district court’s net‑worth worksheet — principally how the court treated the JEP valuation and a $350,000 sale figure. Counsel said correcting the arithmetic would change the comparative net‑worth analysis used to trigger the prenuptial payment provisions.

Panel action

The appellate panel did not rule from the bench. The judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a written opinion.