Utah appeals court considers whether Rule 408 can bar proof of alleged oral settlement

In oral arguments before a three‑judge panel of the Utah Court of Appeals, appellant counsel Jeremy Jones asked the court to clarify whether evidence from settlement discussions may be used to prove or to impeach the denial of an alleged oral settlement in a divorce matter.

"We are asking the panel to consider giving guidance to commissioners on how they might handle, evidentiary objections or other objections generally in the proceedings below," Jones told the panel. He said the district court had excluded his client's testimony and an audio recording under Rule 408 and that independently discoverable material—such as notes taken by a third party, Devin—should be accessible to impeach a denial of an agreement.

Defense counsel Michael Christiansen framed the central question differently: "The central issue on the interlocutory appeal is the application of Rule 408 and whether or not the commissioner in the trial court correctly…