2013UTApp235

_________________________________________________________

THEUTAHCOURTOFAPPEALS
BRIANWOLFERTS,
PetitionerandAppellee,
v.
SONJAMICHELLEWOLFERTS,
RespondentandAppellant.
Opinion
No.20110646CA
FiledOctober3,2013
FourthDistrict,AmericanForkDepartment
TheHonorableChristineS.Johnson
No.074100003
SteveS.Christensen,CraigL.Pankratz,SamuelJ.
Sorensen,andMatthewHilton,Attorneysfor
Appellant
RonaldD.WilkinsonandNathanS.Shill,
AttorneysforAppellee
MarthaPierce,GuardianadLitem
JUDGEWILLIAMA.THORNEJR.1authoredthisOpinion,inwhich
JUDGESJAMESZ.DAVISandMICHELEM.CHRISTIANSEN
concurred.
THORNE,Judge:
1
AppellantSonjaMichelleWolferts(Mother)appealsfrom
threeofthedistrictcourtsorders:theMay5,2010orderenforcing
contemptprovisions;theFindingsofFact,ConclusionsofLaw,and

JudgeWilliamA.ThorneJr.participatedinandvotedon
thiscaseasaregularmemberoftheUtahCourtofAppeals.He
retiredfromthecourtbeforethisdecisionissued.

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

OrderofModificationmodifyingchildcustody;andtheRulingand
OrderonPetitionersRequestforFeesandCostsawardingattorney
feesandcoststoAppelleeBrianWolferts(Father).Weaffirm.

BACKGROUND
2
In 2004, Father filed for divorce. In 2007, the parties
stipulatedthatMotherwouldhaveprimarycustodyoftheparties
threeminordaughters(theChildren) andFatherwould receive
parenttime.Thedistrictcourtenteredanamendeddecreebased
onthepartiesstipulationonDecember5,2007.
3
OnMarch27,2008,Motherfiledapetitiontomodifyseeking
torestrictFathersparenttimeandrequirethathisparenttimebe
supervised.FatheransweredMotherspetition,requestedthecourt
dismiss her petition, and filed a counterpetition wherein he
requestedsolelegalandphysicalcustodyoftheChildren.OnApril
17, 2009, the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) filed a verified motion
seekinganordertoshowcauseforcontemptagainstbothMother
andFather.TheGALallegedthatbothpartieshadfailedtoengage
inrequiredindividualtherapyuntilreleasedbythetherapist.The
GALalsoallegedthatMotherfailedtomakepaymentstothecourt
appointedspecialmaster,toinitiate acustody evaluationanda
psychological evaluation with specific testing as ordered, to
releasemedicalrecordsfortheChildren,andtoensurethatthe
Children were receiving filial therapy. In August 2009, the
commissionerheldahearingontheGALsordertoshowcause
motion. At that hearing, the GAL withdrew his order to show
cause motion as to Father but proceeded against Mother. The
commissionerrecommendedthatthedistrictcourtgranttheGALs
motionandsanctionMotherbystrikingherpleadingsandentering
adefaultagainsther.Thecommissionerthenstayedthesanctions
untilOctober6,2009,togiveMotheranopportunitytopurgeher
contempt, and set a hearing date. Mother did not object to the
commissionersrecommendation,andthedistrictcourtsignedthe
order.

20110646CA

2013UTApp235

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

4
AttheOctober6hearing,thecommissionerdeterminedthat
Motherhadfailedtopurgehercontemptandrecommendedthe
sanctionstaybelifted.Motherobjectedtothedeterminationthat
shehadfailedtopurgehercontemptandrequestedanevidentiary
hearing.Thedistrictcourtheldsuchahearing,andMothertestified
regarding her compliance. The district court found that the
commissionersorderrequiredMothertosubmitanaffidavitfrom
the special master to demonstrate that Mother was in full
compliance withtheorder.Thespecial mastersaffidavitstated
thatMotherwasinpartialcompliance.Thecourtfurtherfoundthat
Mothers testimony was consistent with the special masters
statementthatMotherwasonlyinpartialcompliance.Thedistrict
court denied Mothers objection to the commissioners
determinationthatMotherhadnotcompliedwiththeorder.
5
FollowingtheentryofMothersdefault,thedistrictcourt
then proceeded to hold a best interests hearing on whether a
transfer of custody to Father was in the best interests of the
Children. At the hearing, Fathers attorney and the GAL both
arguedthatbecauseMotherwasfoundindefaultshehadgivenup
her right to fully participate in the best interests hearing and
should only be permitted to crossexamine witnesses. Mothers
attorneyconcededthatMothersabilitytoparticipateinthehearing
waslimitedbecauseofherdefaultbutarguedthatMothershould
still be able to testify on her own behalf and call a few lay
witnesses.Mothersattorneyalsoconcededthatthecourtwould
haveenoughinformationaboutthecasefromtheprofessionalsthat
Fatherintendedtocalltotestifytodeterminethebestinterestsof
the Children. The court determined that the lay witnesses that
Motherintendedtocalldidnotaddmuchtowhatthecourtwasto
consider,especiallygiventheprofessionalsthatFatherintendedto
calltotestify.Thecourtfurthernotedgenerallythatoncedefaulted
a partys ability to participate is limited, and the court then
determined that because Mother was found in contempt her
participation would be limited. The court did allow Mother to
participateincrossexaminationofthewitnessesbutdeclinedto
allowhertocalladditionalwitnesses.

20110646CA

2013UTApp235

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

6
After considering the evidence and legal arguments, the
districtcourtfoundthattheexpertwitnesseswhoalltestifiedthat
Motherwasnotcooperativewerecredible2and,conversely,that
Mother was not credible.3 The court also found, among other
things, that Mother inappropriately coached the Children,
interferedwithparenttimeandtheChildrensrelationshipwith
Father,anddidnotappreciatethatherbehaviorwasharmfultothe
Children.Thereafter,thedistrictcourttransferredcustodyofthe
ChildrentoFather.Motherappeals.

ISSUESANDSTANDARDSOFREVIEW
7
Motherarguesthatthedistrictcourterredwhenitpunished
her for contempt of court without conducting an evidentiary

Specifically,thecourtfoundthatthespecialmasterwas
deliberativeandcontemplativeinallofheranswersand
firmlybelievesthatherdutyisto...assisttheparentsin
workingtogethertoresolvethenumerousissues.Thecourtalso
foundthatDr.HaroldBlakelock,thecourtappointedcustody
evaluator,demonstratedadesiretoworkwithbothparentsand
makeafairassessmentregardingthebestinterestsofthe
children.Lastly,itfoundthatMs.KaydeenJensen,
AdministrativeDirectorfortheFamilyAcademy,expressedon
thestandadesiretoassistbothparentsandcrediblytestified
thatshebelieved...that[Motherhad]coachedthechildren.
3

ThecourtnotedthatMotherstestimonydemonstrateda
thinlyveiled,hostilemanner.Thecourtfoundthat[c]onsistent
withtheopinionsoftheexpertsinthismanner,[Mothers]
testimonyanddemeanordemonstratedthatsheisnot
cooperativeinothermanners.Thecourtdeterminedthat
Motherstestimony[was]notcredible.[Mother]testifiedthat
shewascooperative,butthisisbeliedbytheCourtsexperience,
aswellasbythetestimonyofDr.Blakelock,Ms.Dredge,and
Ms.Jensenwhoalltestifiedthat[Mother]wasnotcooperative.

20110646CA

2013UTApp235

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

hearing.BecauseMotherdidnotpreservethisissueforappeal,she
seeksreviewundertheplainerrorstandard.SeeStatev.Weaver,
2005 UT 49, 18, 122 P.3d 566 (identifying plain error as an
exceptiontothepreservationrule).
8
Mother next argues that the district court erred by
impermissiblystrikingherpleadingsasasanctionforcontemptof
court.Anorderrelatingtocontemptofcourtisamatterthatrests
withinthesounddiscretionofthe[district]court.Chenv.Stewart,
2005UT68,44,123P.3d416(alterationinoriginal)(citationand
internal quotation marks omitted). We accordingly review the
sanctions imposed by the district court for an abuse of that
discretion.Id.
9
Motheralsoarguesthatthecourtviolatedherdueprocess
rightswhenitdeprivedMotherofherconstitutionalrighttotestify
andpresentevidenceatthehearingtodeterminethebestinterests
of the Children. Constitutional issues, including questions
regarding due process, are questions of law that we review for
correctness.Chenv.Stewart,2004UT82,25,100P.3d1177.

ANALYSIS
I.ContemptProceeding
10 Motherarguesthatthedistrictcourterredwhenitpunished
her for contempt of court without conducting an evidentiary
hearing.Motherdidnotpreservethisissueandseeksreviewunder
theplainerrorstandard.4
11 Todemonstrateplainerror,Mothermustestablishthat(i)
anerrorexists;(ii)theerrorshouldhavebeenobvioustothetrial
court;and(iii)theerrorisharmful,i.e.,absenttheerror,thereisa
reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the

Motherhaswithdrawnherrelatedargumentthatthe
commissionerlackedauthoritytoholdherincontempt.

20110646CA

2013UTApp235

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

appellant. State v. Larsen, 2005 UT App 201, 3, 113 P.3d 998

(internal quotation marks omitted). If any one of these
requirementsisnotmet,plainerrorisnotestablished.Id.(citation
andinternalquotationmarksomitted).
12 Mother asserts that the district court erred when it held
her in contempt, based on the commissioners contempt
recommendation,withoutconductinganevidentiaryhearing.In
supportofthisargument,Motherassertsthatthecommissionerdid
not allow her to confront any witnesses against her or to offer
testimony on her own behalf before finding her in contempt of
court.
13 At the contempt hearing, the commissioner allowed the
GAL to present his motion for contempt against Mother. The
commissioneralsoprovidedMother,Father,andthespecialmaster
an opportunity to address the contempt issues against Mother.
After hearing the GALs, Fathers, and the special masters
argumentsinfavorofacontemptfindingagainstMother,Mother
wasgivenanopportunitytoaddressthecontemptissuesagainst
her.Mothersattorneypresentedherargumentinresponsetothe
contempt allegations and submitted the matter based on the
evidence Father had presented and the argument she had
presented.Mothersattorneydidnotseektocallanywitnessesto
rebut the statements made by the GAL, Father, or the special
masterineachoftheirargumentsagainstMother.NordidMother
request the opportunity to testify on her own behalf. Because
Mother never sought to call any witnesses or to testify at the
contempt hearing, we do not agree with Mother that the
commissionerdeprivedherofherrighttoconfrontwitnessesorto
testifyonherownbehalfbeforefindingherincontempt.Instead,
Mothermerelyfailedtocallherownwitnessesortotestifyherself.
Cf. Gardiner v.York,2010UT App108,44,233 P.3d500([I]n
casesof...criminalcontemptproceduraldueprocessrequiresthat
thedefendanthaveassistanceofcounsel,ifrequested,havetheright
toconfrontwitnesses,andhavetherighttooffertestimonyonhisbehalf.
(emphasisadded)(citationandinternalquotationmarksomitted)).

20110646CA

2013UTApp235

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

14 Inadditiontothisfailure,Motherdidnotobjectorotherwise
informthedistrictcourtofanydissatisfactionwiththecontempt
proceeding conducted by the commissioner, i.e., that the
commissioner had failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing. A
recommendationofacourtcommissioneristheorderofthecourt
until modified by the court. Utah R. Civ. P. 108(a). Because
Motherdidnotobjecttothecontemptproceedingprocedure,the
districtcourtacceptedthecommissionersrecommendationand
countersignedthecontemptorder.Basedonthesecircumstances,
we cannot conclude that Mother was denied an opportunity to
fullyaddressthecontemptallegationsagainsther.
15 In the alternative, Mother argues that the court erred
becausetheconditionsshewasrequiredtomeetinordertopurge
hercontemptwerecontinuallychanging.Motheralsoarguesthat
because she received the written order four days before the
scheduledhearing,itwasimpossibleforhertocomply.Because
Mother did not preserve either issue, she argues plain error.
Mothers arguments are inadequately briefed. Rule 24(a)(9)
requires that the argument section of a brief contain the
contentionsandreasonsoftheappellantwithrespecttotheissues
presented,...withcitationstotheauthorities,statutes,andparts
oftherecordreliedon.UtahR.App.P.24(a)(9);seealsoStatev.
Green, 2004 UT 76, 13, 99 P.3d 820 (Implicitly, rule 24(a)(9)
requiresnotjustbaldcitationtoauthoritybutdevelopmentofthat
authorityandreasonedanalysisbasedonthatauthority.(citation
andinternalquotationmarksomitted)).
16 Motherarguesthatshedidnothavesufficientnoticeofthe
requirementstopurgehercontemptbecauseaftershesubmitted
affidavitsthatallegedlycompliedwiththecommissionersAugust
2009 oral recitation of the requirements to purge contempt, the
GAL submitted a written order on October 2, 2009four days
before the hearingwhich included additional and different
requirements.AlthoughMotherprovidesastringciteofmostly
outofstatecasesinsupportofherargumentthatacourtcannot
punishapartyforfailingtocomplywithanorderthatprovides
insufficient notice, Mother makes no attempt to conduct any
substantial analysis of those cases. More importantly, Mother

20110646CA

2013UTApp235

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

simply does not detail what the additional or changed

requirementswere.Withoutthisinformationitwouldbedifficult
ifnotimpossibleforthiscourttodeterminewhat,ifany,ofthe
requirementshadchanged.Thisinformationisalsonecessaryto
determinewhetherMotherhadbeengivenadequatenoticeofthe
requirementsshemustmeetinordertopurgehercontempt.
17 BecauseMotherfailstoprovideanyreasonedanalysisand
doesnotcitetherecommendationsthatsheargueswereaddedor
changed,wedeclinetoaddressherinsufficientnoticeissuebased
oninadequatebriefing.SeeSpencerv.PleasantViewCity,2003UT
App379,20,80P.3d546(Itiswellestablishedthatareviewing
courtwillnotaddressargumentsthatarenotadequatelybriefed.
(citationandinternalquotationmarksomitted)).
II.ContemptofCourtSanctions
18 Motherclaimsthatthedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretionby
strikingherpleadingasasanctionforherfailuretocomplywitha
custodyevaluationorder.Mothermaintainsthatthecourtordered
custodyevaluationisnotadiscoveryorderandthereforethecourt
hadauthoritytoenforcethecustodyevaluationorderonlythrough
contemptproceedings,whichauthoritysheassertsdoesnotallow
a court to strike pleadings and enter a default against a
noncompliantparty.Inthealternative,Motherarguesthatevenif
thecustodyevaluationorderisconsideredadiscoveryorder,the
courtabuseditsdiscretionbyfailingtonotifyherinadvancethat
any violation of the custody evaluation order could result in a
discoverysanction.FathercountersthatMotherfailedtopreserve
theseargumentsinthedistrictcourt.
19 Anissueispreservedforappealwhenithasbeenpresented
tothedistrictcourtinsuchawaythatthecourthasanopportunity
toruleonthatissue.438MainSt.v.EasyHeat,Inc.,2004UT72,
51,99P.3d801.Toprovidethecourtwiththisopportunity,the
issuemustbespecificallyraised[bythepartyassertingerror],ina
timelymanner,andmustbesupportedbyevidenceandrelevant
legal authority. In re D.B., 2012 UT 65, 17, 289 P.3d 459

20110646CA

2013UTApp235

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

(alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted).
20 Motherconcedes,inherreplybrief,thatshedidnotraise
below the issues related to the district courts ruling striking
Mothers pleadings. She argues, however, that the preservation
rule doesnot prohibit anappellantfromraisinganddiscussing
controllingauthorityonappealevenifthecontrollingauthority
was not presented to the district court. Alternatively, Mother
argues that this court should review her issues under the
exceptionalcircumstancedoctrineorplainerror.Mother,however,
raisesbothoftheseargumentsforthefirsttimeinherreplybrief.
Wewillnotconsidermattersraisedforthefirsttimeinthereply
brief.Statev.Weaver,2005UT49,19,122P.3d566([T]hiscourt
has required the party seeking appellate review on issues not
brought before the lower court to articulate the justification for
review in the partys opening brief.). Because Mother neither
preserved her arguments related to whether the district court
abused its discretion by striking her pleading, as a sanction for
contempt of court, nor timely asserted any exception to the
preservation rule on appeal, we do not consider these issues
further.
III.BestInterestsoftheChildrenHearing
21 Mothernextarguesthatthedistrictcourtdeprivedherof
her constitutional right to testify and present evidence at the
hearingtodeterminethebestinterestsoftheChildren.Fatherurges
thiscourttoupholdthecourtsmodificationofthedivorcedecree,
arguingthatMotherwaivedherrighttotestifyandinvitederrorby
herconductandcounselsstatementsaffirmativelyrepresenting
that Mother would not be prejudiced by her inability to call
witnesses and to testify on her own behalf at the best interests
hearing.WedeclinetoconsiderwhetherMotherwaivedorinvited
any error because we conclude, instead, that Mother failed to
preservetheissue.
22 In her statement of preservation in her opening brief,
Motherassertsthatshepreservedtheissueofwhethersheshould

20110646CA

2013UTApp235

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

be allowed to testify or present evidence at the child custody

hearing.Motherdid,indeed,preservethatissuebyfilingamotion
andorallyrequestingthatthecourtallowhertocallwitnessesand
testifyatthebestinterestshearing.Shedidnot,however,preserve
her argument that limiting her participation to only cross
examination of the witnesses deprived her of her constitutional
right to testify and present evidence. The district court heard
arguments from the parties regarding what rights Mother, as a
defaulting party, would have to participate in the best interests
hearing. At an evidentiary hearing, Father was required to
demonstratethatthebestinterestsoftheChildrenwouldbeserved
byhavingcustodyoftheChildrentransferredtohim.Although
Motherrequestedthatshebepermittedtocallherownwitnesses
andtestifyherselfatthebestinterestshearing,shedidnotassert
thatshehadaconstitutionalrighttodoso,nordidsheargueshe
wouldbeprejudicedbysucharestriction.5Assuch,Motherdidnot
5

InresponsetoFathersargumentthatMothershouldbe
prohibitedfromcallingwitnessesandtestifyingherself,
Mothersattorneystatedasfollows:
Yourhonor,[Fathersattorney]iscorrect...
regardingthewitnessesthattheyarecalling.The
Courtwillhaveampleopportunitytohearabout
thecaseandtohear...whattheprofessionals
believeisinthebestinterestofthechildren.
Which...frommyknowledgeisnotgoing
tobeinmyclientsinterest.Therefore,ifIwereto
callwitnessesonmyclientsbehalf,...Illconcede
atthispointitismybeliefthattheCourtwillstill
maketheproperfinding.OratleasttheCourtwill
stillhavealloftheevidencetomakethefinding.
AndsoIdontthinkitwillseverely
prejudicethem,givenallofthewitnessesthat
theyregoing...tocall,forexample,thecustody
evaluator,...andalloftheprofessionals.
Idonthaveanyprofessionals.Ijustsimply
(continued...)

20110646CA

10

2013UTApp235

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

presentherconstitutionalargumenttothedistrictcourtinsucha
waythatithadanopportunitytoruleonthatissue.438MainSt.,
2004UT72,51;seealsoInreD.B.,2012UT65,17(Toprovide
the court with this opportunity, the issue must be specifically
raised[bythepartyassertingerror],inatimelymanner,andmust
besupportedbyevidenceandrelevantlegalauthority.(alteration
inoriginal)(citationandinternalquotationmarksomitted));seealso
InreA.K.,2012UTApp232,22,285P.3d772([T]hepreservation
ruleappliestoeveryclaim,includingconstitutionalquestions....
(alteration and omission in original) (citation and internal
quotationmarksomitted)).Motherdoesnotassertanyexceptions
tothepreservationrule.Asaresult,wedonotconsiderMothers
constitutionalargument.6

(...continued)
havelaymembersofthecommunitythatknow
[Mother]tocomeforward.Andtotellyouthe
truth,Imnotsurehowmuchweightthatwill
carrywiththeCourt.
AndsowhetherIcallwitnessesornot,Ill
concederightnowImnotsureifthatsgonna
makeadifference.SotheCourtmightaswelllet
mecallwitnessesifIvegottwoorthreetocall.
6

Motheralsoarguesthatpublicpolicyrequiredthatthe
districtcourtallowhertopresentevidenceduringthebest
interestshearing.Motherassertsthatthecourtabusedits
discretioninlimitingherparticipationinthebestinterests
hearingbecauseitimpactsinnocentthirdpartiesandunlawfully
restrictsthecourtsabilitytoconsidertheChildrensbest
interests.Nonetheless,wedeclinetoconsiderthisissuebecause
Motherdidnotprovidethiscourtwithacitationtotherecord
showingthattheissuewaspreservedbelow,seeUtahR.App.P.
24(a)(5)(A),nordidshearguethatanyexceptiontothe
preservationruleapplies,cf.InreD.B.,2012UT65,17,289P.3d
459.

20110646CA

11

2013UTApp235

Wolfertsv.Wolferts

IV.AttorneyFeesonAppeal
23 Fatherrequestsattorneyfeesonappeal.Generally,when
thetrialcourtawardsfeesinadomesticactiontothepartywho
thensubstantiallyprevailsonappeal,feeswillalsobeawardedto
thatpartyonappeal.Leppertv.Leppert,2009UTApp10,29,200
P.3d 223 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The
districtcourtawardedFatherattorneyfeesandcostsincurredin
enforcing the courts order. Father has prevailed on appeal.
Therefore,Fatherisentitledtoreasonableattorneyfeesincurredon
appeal.Accordingly,weawardFatherattorneyfeesonappealand
remand the matter to the district court for determination of the
amountofthataward.

CONCLUSION
24 Motherpreservedneitherherissuesrelatedtothedistrict
courtsrulingstrikingherpleadingsnorherconstitutionalissues
inthedistrictcourt.Therefore,wedonotconsiderthoseissueson
appeal. Mother also fails to establish that the district court
committed any error in the manner in which it conducted the
contempt proceedings in this matter. Moreover, Mothers
insufficientnoticeargumentsareinadequatelybriefed.Forthese
reasons,weaffirmthedistrictcourtsorders.
25 Fatherwasawardedcostsandfeesbelow,hasprevailedon
appeal,andnowrequestsattorneyfeesonappeal.Wetherefore
awardfees,andremandtheissueofFathersattorneyfeestothe
districtcourtforitsassessment.

20110646CA

12

2013UTApp235