Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5

Law changed since Effective September 1, 2024, Utah repealed § 30-3-5 and recodified its subjects in Title 81; this note names the former section rather than the current location.

Section 30-3-5 gives district courts continuing jurisdiction after a final divorce decree, but that jurisdiction does not apply while issues reserved in a bifurcated divorce remain unresolved.

Copier v. Copier · filed 1997-05-30

Because the district court has continuing jurisdiction in divorce proceedings under Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5 (1995), several orders in a single divorce proceeding may be final and appealable. ... However, the decree in this case is not a final divorce decree, and the ongoing proceedings are not within the court’s continuing jurisdiction under section 30-3-5.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 30-3-5(3) generally does not permit a fraud claim to be pursued through a petition to modify a divorce decree.

Bayles v. Bayles · filed 1999-04-22(3)

We hold that a claim of fraud, in almost every instance, is not properly addressed in a petition to modify a divorce decree.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 30-3-5 requires a substantial material change of circumstances that was not foreseeable at the time of divorce before a court may modify support payments.

Swallow v. Kennard · filed 2008-04-10(7)(g)(i)

The trial court properly modified the divorce decree. "Before the trial court can modify a divorce decree, it must find that there has been a 'substantial material change of cireumstances not foreseeable at the time of the divorce.'" Williamson v. Williamson, 1999 UT App 219, ¶8, 983 P.2d 1103 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(7)(g)(@) (1998) (current version at Utah Code Ann. § 30-8-5(8)(g)@M) (2007))).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 30-3-5 gives divorce courts continuing authority to modify decree obligations when a substantial change in circumstances warrants it.

Davis v. Davis · filed 2011-09-09(3)

Nevertheless, trial courts have "continuing jurisdiction to make subsequent changes or new orders" regarding child custody and support; the parties' property, debts, and obligations; and alimony, see Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(3), (8)(g)(i) (Supp. 2011), if the party seeking such a change is able to demonstrate that a substantial change of circumstances not contemplated in the divorce decree has occurred since the decree was entered, see Krambule v. Krambule, 1999 UT App 357, ¶ 13, 994 P.2d 210.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 30-3-5 authorizes equitable divorce orders and gives courts continuing jurisdiction to modify them; a decree modification proceeding is equitable and carries no right to a jury trial.

Hahn v. Hahn · filed 2018-07-06(1), (3), (4)

In Utah, an original decree of divorce may include “equitable orders relating to the children, property, debts or obligations, and parties.” Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2017). The court retains continuing jurisdiction to modify or make new orders. Id. § 30-3-5(3), (4). ... Considering the nature of the proceedings and our precedent, the court properly concluded that the modification matter was equitable in nature, and consequently, that Father was not entitled to a jury trial.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 30-3-5 gives courts continuing jurisdiction over specified divorce-decree matters, but does not authorize them to modify a stipulated nondisparagement clause unrelated to children.

Robertson v. Stevens · filed 2020-02-21(3), (8)(i)(i)

In the family law context, our legislature has given district courts the authority to revisit many of the provisions contained in a typical divorce decree, including provisions pertaining to child custody, child support, alimony, property distribution, and debts. See Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(3) (LexisNexis 2019) (“The court has continuing jurisdiction to make subsequent changes or new orders for the custody of a child and the child’s support, maintenance, health, and dental care, and for distribution of the property and obligations for debts as is reasonable and necessary.”); id. § 30-3-5(8)(i)(i) (“The court has continuing jurisdiction to make substantive changes and new orders regarding alimony based on a substantial material change in circumstances not foreseeable at the time of the divorce.”); id. § 78B-12-104 (2018) (“The court shall retain jurisdiction to modify or vacate the order of [child] support where justice requires.”). But no statute gives courts continuing jurisdiction to revisit stipulated nondisparagement clauses found in divorce decrees, at least where such clauses do not concern children, and Stevens does not invoke rule 60 or any other rule purporting to give a court the authority to alter a final judgment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 30-3-5 gives trial courts continuing jurisdiction over divorce decrees and discretion to consider a party’s ability to pay costs in modification proceedings.

Hardy v. Hardy · filed 1989-06-20

Further, in modification of divorce decrees pursuant to the continuing jurisdiction of the trial court set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5 (1984), the question of the ability or inability of a party to pay costs in defending the matter is a factual matter which lies in the discretion of the trial court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (7) concerns costs and attorney fees for district court petitions to modify child custody or visitation that lack merit and good faith.

Adelman v. Adelman · filed 1991-07-25(7)

The section cited refers to petitions for modification of child custody or visitation brought in the district court without merit and not asserted in good faith. Because this section does not apply to the present case, we do not award Ms. Lynch fees and costs on appeal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 30-3-5(8) permits a prevailing party to recover custody-evaluation expert fees as court costs incurred because the other party failed to provide court-ordered visitation.

Sigg v. Sigg · filed 1995-10-26(8)

However, section 30-3-5(8) also allows the award of “actual attorney fees and court costs incurred by the prevailing party because of the other party’s failure to provide or exercise court-ordered visitation.” Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(8) (1995). Because Mr. Sigg is the prevailing party, and because Dr. Stewart’s custody evaluation was a court cost incurred as a result of Ms. Sigg’s failure to provide or permit visitation, we find no abuse of discretion in awarding the expert witness fees to Mr. Sigg.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 30-3-5(6) and (7) address attorney fees when a petition to modify child custody or parent-time provisions is denied or a petition alleges noncompliance with a parent-time order.

Ostermiller v. Ostermiller · filed 2008-06-26(6), (7)

Although Wife points to no specific provision in section 30-3-5, the only two references to attorney fees in that section apply to situations where "a petition for modification of child custody or parent-time provisions of a court order is made and denied," see Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-5(6) (2007), or where "a petition alleges noncompliance with a parent-time order by a parent," see id. § 30-3-5(7). The situation here fits neither of those procedural scenarios.