Blain v. Blain

Blain v. Blain

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Julie D. Blain (Horrocks),

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

Dennis D. Blain,

Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030864-CA
 

F I L E D
(March 3, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 95

 

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable William B. Bohling

Attorneys: Randy S. Ludlow, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Richard S. Nemelka and Stephen R. Nemelka, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Jackson, and Thorne.

BENCH, Associate Presiding Judge:

    Dennis D. Blain appeals the district court's denial of his petition to modify a divorce decree. Blain argues that the district court erred when it determined that the parties' stipulation on child support was ambiguous. Blain therefore urges that the district court erred when it allowed Julie D. Horrocks to present extrinsic evidence concerning the meaning of the stipulation. We construe stipulations like other contracts; thus, "whether [a stipulation] is ambiguous is a matter of law, which we review for correctness." Yeargin v. Auditing Div. of Utah State Tax Comm'n., 2001 UT 11,¶39, 20 P.3d 287.

    The stipulation provides that:

[Blain] is to pay . . . base child support in the amount of $831.00 per month. This obligation is deemed to begin effective January 1, 1998, and shall continue with respect to each minor child until that child shall reach the age of 18 or graduate from high school in the normal course of his or her education.

The stipulation unambiguously provides that Blain's obligation to pay $831.00 per month continues until one of the minor children reaches the age of majority or graduates from high school. Thus, the stipulation clearly allows modification of the base child support obligation as each child reaches majority or graduates. We therefore reverse the district court's finding of ambiguity and its admission of extrinsic evidence. See Aspenwood v. C.A.T., 2003 UT App 28,¶30, 73 P.3d 947, cert. denied, 72 P.3d 685 (Utah 2003) (noting that extrinsic evidence is only admissible if a contract is ambiguous).

    Blain also argues that the district court erred in failing to address his request that he be allowed to claim the parties' remaining minor child for tax purposes. Because the district court did not address this claim, we remand.

    Finally, Blain asserts that he is entitled to attorney fees both at trial and on appeal. Given our reversal of the district court's interpretation of the stipulation and the district court's failure to consider the tax status of the parties' minor child, we remand for reconsideration of the attorney fees issue.

    We therefore reverse the order of the district court and remand for further proceedings.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge