At Utah Court of Appeals, appellant says trial court misapplied income rules in child-support case and asks remand on sanctions

The Utah Court of Appeals heard arguments in Sarah Ward v. Meredith McGarry, where the appellant says the trial court wrongly calculated parental income for child support and failed to punish discovery abuses.

Appellant counsel Angelie Dockich told the three-judge panel the appeal raises three issues, chief among them that the trial court did not apply the statutory standard for calculating income from self-employment and allowed the lower court’s imputed income figure to stand without proper analysis. "The evidence doesn't support that the $18,000 finding was ... an accurate or imputed income essentially," Dockich said, arguing the record supports a substantially higher income and that certain deductions (including depreciation and ranch losses) were not "necessary expenses" under the Utah code language cited in briefing.

Dockich told the court that the trial court accepted a figure that came from counsel's number on the record — citing a $32,317.67 monthly figure from financial declarations — without a proper statutory analysis and that, when certain ranch deductions and other items are added back, the monthly figure could be substantially higher. She also alleged inconsistent testimony about ownership shares and contended parts of the record show income shifted within family entities in ways intended to reduce reported income for child-support purposes.

The appellant pressed the panel on discovery and sanctions, saying she had filed statements of discovery issues, motions to compel, subpoenas to banks and to the Utah State Tax Commission, and that full tax returns were only produced 28 days before trial after years of litigation. Counsel said her motions below sought reimbursement of fees and even entry of default in some instances but that the trial court did not impose sanctions. "We want remand on it," Dockich told the court, asking for reconsideration of sanctions findings rather than asking the appellate court to select a particular sanction.

Appellee counsel Julie Nelson responded that the core dispute is income for child support, not property distribution, and that much of the litigation reads as an imputation claim (building up income) rather than a straight self-employment (gross-minus-expenses) calculation. Nelson argued the trial court made findings about the ranch (that the purchase was a one-time investment decision by Roy, the majority owner) and about the wife's separate income, and that those factual findings supported the trial court's conclusion. "I don't see this as actually being a self-employment case, at least in the traditional sense," Nelson said, adding that the trial court addressed the issues presented and that the appellant has not shown legal error warranting reversal.

The panel questioned both sides about legal frameworks and the record citations supporting discovery complaints. Several justices pressed whether the appellant had invoked Rule 11's safe-harbor provision, and whether the briefing identifies discrete rulings on which the court should reverse rather than asking for a global abuse-of-discretion finding. The bench also queried whether the court could disturb the trial court's factual finding that delays were not intentionally undertaken to undermine the opposing party's preparation.

After extended questioning, the court thanked counsel and said it would take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision. No rulings were announced from the bench at argument.

Next steps: the Court of Appeals will issue a written opinion resolving the statutory interpretation and discovery/sanctions claims.