Krambule v. Krambule
Annotate this Casepublication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
----ooOoo----
Ricky D. Krambule,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
Barbara R. Krambule,
Defendant and Appellee.
OPINION
(For Official Publication)
Case No. 981567-CA
F I L E D
December 9, 1999
1999 UT App 357
-----
Second District, Farmington
Department
The Honorable Darwin C.
Hansen
Attorneys:
Robert L. Neeley, Ogden,
for Appellant
Robert A. Echard and Steven
L. Fenton, Ogden, for Appellee
-----
Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and Orme.
DAVIS, Judge:
¶1.
Ricky D. Krambule (Rick)
appeals the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor
of Barbara R. Krambule, in which the court concluded that Rick was the
legal father of Matthew Krambule, and the subsequent modification of the
divorce decree ordering Rick to pay child support for Matthew. Because
Barbara's claim is barred by res judicata, the trial court erred in finding
there was a substantial change in circumstances and therefore had no basis
on which to modify the divorce decree. Accordingly, we reverse.
BACKGROUND
¶2.
Rick and Barbara were married
in 1979. Although they desired to become parents, they discovered that
Rick was sterile. Upon considering various options, the couple decided
to go to the University of Utah School of Medicine so Barbara could be
artificially inseminated with the sperm of an anonymous donor. They tried
unsuccessfully for a number of years to conceive a child, but ultimately,
as a result of this procedure, Barbara conceived a daughter, Stephanie,
who was born in 1985.
¶3.
In 1989, after experiencing
some marital discord, Rick and Barbara separated. Eventually, however,
the couple reconciled and, in approximately July 1990, decided to attempt
to have another child. To that end, the couple again went to the University
of Utah for artificial insemination. To consent to the procedure, Rick
and Barbara entered into an agreement with the University of Utah, which
provided in part:
2. We hereby affirm
our desire to achieve pregnancy and request that artificial insemination
procedures be utilized in an attempt to achieve pregnancy in the wife with
semen obtained from an unidentified and undisclosed third party donor(s).
. . . .
8. We acknowledge that our
participation in the artificial insemination procedure(s) is voluntary.
. . . .
10. We jointly and severally
agree to recognize and accept the full legal, moral, parental, financial,
social, emotional and cultural responsibility and care of any offspring
that may result from any pregnancy achieved through the artificial insemination
procedure(s). We also mutually and individually agree to accept and assume
the same duties, obligations and responsibilities toward such offspring
to the full extent in the same manner as owed by the undersigned to naturally
occurring offspring, and acknowledge and agree that any offspring resulting
from the artificial insemination procedure(s) shall be their legal heirs(s)
and that the said offspring shall be, for all purposes, the child of the
husband and wife, and the husband shall for all purposes be considered
the father of the said offspring.
After entering into the agreement,
the couple selected three anonymous donors and began the artificial insemination
process, which included Barbara's submission to ongoing treatment, medication,
and multiple surgeries.
¶4.
Despite their rejuvenated
marriage and plans for the future, more discord arose between Rick and
Barbara and, on or about May 3, 1991, Rick moved out of the home. Notwithstanding
this separation, Barbara continued the artificial insemination process
and, on June 23, 1991, conceived a son, Matthew.(1)
Although Barbara did not inform Rick that she was continuing the insemination
process, in a post-separation letter written by Rick to Barbara, Rick stated,
"if you get pregnant[,] I've got no idea how that's going to work."
¶5.
A few months after separation,
in August 1991, Rick initiated divorce proceedings. Subsequently, Barbara's
counsel wrote a letter to Rick's counsel, advising that Barbara was pregnant
and would not agree to a stipulation and property settlement that did not
provide for support of the expected child.(2)
Nonetheless, the couple apparently eventually agreed on an alternative
settlement and, on January 16, 1992, they executed a stipulation which
did not require Rick to support the expected child, but did require him
to pay alimony. See supra note 2. After a February 1992 hearing,
the commissioner concluded there were irreconcilable differences and accepted
the stipulated settlement. The minute entry from this hearing further indicated,
"There is a child expected by [Barbara] but the child is not [Rick's]."
¶6.
Matthew was born on March
24, 1992, and on April 6, 1992, the divorce decree was entered which incorporated
the stipulated settlement. The decree did not require Rick to pay support
for Matthew, but did order support to be paid for the couple's first child,
Stephanie. Rick was also ordered to pay alimony for up to four years or
until Barbara graduated from college, and to pay all reasonable book and
tuition expenses for Barbara's college education.
¶7.
In July 1996, over four
years after entry of the divorce decree, Barbara petitioned the court to
modify the decree. In her petition, Barbara requested an increase in child
support for Stephanie and an order for Rick to pay child support for Matthew,
asserting "[t]here has been a material change of circumstances since the
Court originally established child support in this matter consisting in
part of an additional child being born to the parties." Barbara further
asserted that the court never ruled on the paternity of Matthew and requested
an order declaring Rick the father.
¶8.
Before trial, both parties
moved for summary judgment on the issue of whether Rick was the legal father
of Matthew. Neither party disputed that Rick was not Matthew's biological
father, and the court so ruled.(3) The court,
however, granted Barbara's motion, concluding that although not genetically
related, Rick had a legal obligation to Matthew. The court explained that
because the couple entered into a binding contract for artificial insemination
which neither party repudiated prior to conception, with respect to Matthew,
both parties had the rights and responsibilities of a natural parent.
¶9.
The matter subsequently
went to trial on the remaining issues of child support, visitation, day
care expenses, medical expenses, medical and life insurance, and attorney
fees, regarding both children. The trial court concluded there had been
a substantial change in circumstances.(4)
The court also found that before the original divorce decree was entered
Barbara made statements to Rick that she wanted only the Krambule name
for Matthew; that although Barbara was emotional during the divorce process,
she nonetheless testified that her decision to make no claim for Matthew
was carefully considered while she had the assistance of counsel; and that
in return for Barbara abandoning a claim for Matthew's support, Rick agreed
to pay alimony and provide for her education. Accordingly, although the
court concluded Rick was responsible for child support, it ruled that Barbara
was equitably estopped from recovering child support for Matthew accruing
before she filed her petition to modify, and thus ordered Rick to pay child
support only prospectively from the date of filing. Rick now appeals from
the entire judgment.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶10.
On appeal, our review centers
on the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment, in which it ruled
that Rick has a duty to support Matthew. "'Summary judgment is appropriate
only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Because a summary judgment
presents questions of law, we review the trial court's ruling for correctness."
In re General Determination of the Rights to the Use of All the Water,
982 P.2d 65, 69 (Utah 1999) (citations omitted); see Utah R. Civ.
P. 56(c). Thus, although we generally review the determination to modify
a divorce decree for an abuse of discretion, insofar as that determination
is based on a conclusion of law, we review it for correctness. See
Toone v. Toone, 952 P.2d 112, 114 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). We do not
disturb the trial court's factual findings after trial unless clearly erroneous.
See Hudema v. Carpenter, 380 Utah Adv. Rep. 3, 5 (Utah Ct.
App. 1999); Osguthorpe v. Osguthorpe, 804 P.2d 530, 534 (Utah Ct.
App. 1990) (per curiam).
ANALYSIS
¶11.
Rick argues that Barbara
may not receive child support for Matthew because such claim is barred
by res judicata, she has waived any contractual rights granted under the
artificial insemination agreement, and she is equitably estopped from claiming
that Rick is Matthew's father. Rick further argues that the insemination
agreement was ambiguous and material issues of fact exist as to the parties'
intent. Finally, Rick argues that he should not be held to be Matthew's
legal father because he did not consent to Barbara's continuing the insemination
process after the separation.(5)
¶12.
We begin our review by evaluating
whether res judicata precludes Barbara from asserting that Rick owed a
duty of support for Matthew. "Res judicata has two branches: claim preclusion
and issue preclusion." Masters v. Worsley, 777 P.2d 499, 503 (Utah
Ct. App. 1989). At issue here is the claim preclusion branch of res judicata.
"Claim preclusion prevents relitigation of claims that have been fully
litigated between the same parties, and also precludes claims which
'could and should have been litigated in the prior action, but were not
raised.'" Id. (quoting Copper State Thrift & Loan v.
Bruno, 735 P.2d 387, 389 (Utah Ct. App. 1987)) (emphasis added); see
also Jacobsen v. Jacobsen, 703 P.2d 303, 305 (Utah 1985) ("'When
there has been an adjudication, it becomes res judicata as to those issues
which were either tried and determined, or upon all issues which the party
had a fair opportunity to present and have determined in the other proceeding.'")
(citation omitted).
¶13.
The principles of res judicata
apply fully in the context of divorce proceedings. See Jacobsen,
703 P.2d at 305. Nonetheless, "[t]he court has continuing jurisdiction
to make subsequent changes or new orders for the custody of the children
and their support . . . as is reasonable and necessary." Utah Code Ann.
§ 30-3-5(3) (Supp. 1999); see also Bayles v. Bayles,
981 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah Ct. App. 1999). Consequently, principles of res
judicata require that "a party seeking modification of a divorce decree
must demonstrate that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred
since the entry of the decree, and not contemplated in the decree itself."
Bayles, 981 P.2d at 406 (alteration, citations, and quotation marks
omitted); accord Ostler v. Ostler, 789 P.2d 713, 715 (Utah
Ct. App. 1990). "In the absence of such a showing, the decree shall not
be modified
. . . ." Jacobsen,
703 P.2d at 305.
¶14.
Although Barbara's petition
for modification asked the court to revisit the amount of child support
due with respect to both Stephanie and Matthew, and Matthew was not mentioned
in the original decree, the sole apparent factual basis for a determination
of changed circumstances with respect to Matthew was that Matthew was an
additional child born to the parties but not provided for in the decree.
¶15.
Barbara must show that the
alleged "'"substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the
entry of the decree."'" Bayles, 981 P.2d at 406 (citations omitted)
(emphasis added). The undisputed facts here show that, other than foreseeable
events occasioned by the passage of time, nothing new has occurred since
entry of the divorce decree. That is, before the decree was entered in
April 1992, the 1990 insemination agreement had been executed and Barbara
became pregnant, carried the child to term, and gave birth. Further, Barbara
had full knowledge that she was pregnant as a result of the insemination
procedure at the time she executed the stipulated settlement which deliberately
omitted any obligation for Rick to pay child support for Matthew. Indeed,
the letter from Barbara's counsel shows she knew she had a claim for Matthew's
support at least three months before the entry of the decree. See
Masters, 777 P.2d at 503 (rejecting application of res judicata
to a claim not litigated in earlier divorce proceeding, stating the claim
"could not have been tried in the [original] divorce [proceeding] because
[plaintiff] had no knowledge of the alleged facts supporting his claim").
Finally, after trial on her petition for modification, the trial court
found that although Barbara was emotional during the divorce process, she
testified that her decision not to make a claim for child support was carefully
considered and made with the assistance of counsel, and that in return
for Barbara's abandoning this claim Rick agreed to pay alimony and provide
for her education.
¶16.
In short, there is simply
no indication of any circumstances occurring after entry of the
decree supporting a determination that there had been a substantial change
of circumstances. As such, Barbara's claim for child support for Matthew
based on the insemination agreement could and should have been asserted
in the original divorce action and is therefore now barred under the principles
of res judicata. Consequently, we have no option but to conclude that the
trial court erred in determining there was a substantial change in circumstances
and thus in modifying the divorce decree to impose a child support obligation
on Rick with respect to Matthew.(6)
CONCLUSION
¶17.
We conclude that because
all facts relating to Barbara's claim for Matthew's support were in existence
and known to the parties prior to entry of the divorce decree, there has
been no substantial changed circumstances warranting modification. Hence,
Barbara is barred by principles of res judicata from now asserting her
contractual claim for Matthew's support which could and should have been
litigated in the original proceeding. Consequently, we reverse the trial
court's grant of partial summary judgment, and remand for entry of partial
summary judgment in favor of Rick. We further reverse those portions of
the trial court's final order based on the determination that Rick was
Matthew's legal father, and remand for entry of a new final order consistent
with this opinion.
¶18.
Reversed and remanded.
______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
-----
¶19.
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
1. The record does not reflect that Rick made any effort to contact the University of Utah to withdraw his consent to the artificial insemination.
2. The letter provided: In connection with the above matter, my client [Barbara] has recently brought to my attention an item that she debated at great lengths whether she should or should not pursue and has finally decided she's going to pursue it.
Your client and my client agreed to artificial insemination so that the parties could have another child.
This artificial insemination was in fact conducted and as a result my client is pregnant and expecting a child.
[Barbara] is somewhere between 4 and 6 months pregnant and since [Rick] agreed to the artificial insemination and she's going to obtain for me his written consent, the child is his and I've tried this before where the Court has acknowledged these types of agreements.
My client has indicated that if he will not put up a fuss over this child, pay the child support in accordance with the schedule for the children, then she would give up any claim she has to alimony.
In addition, she indicated that she would allow overnight visits on Mondays and Wednesdays and when school is not in session, which would include holidays and summer vacation.
Please review this with your client, get back with me and if we can work out a Stipulation along those lines, let me know.
The Stipulation you sent me does not provide for that and my client is not willing to sign it.
I did forward to [Barbara] a copy, she has it, and that's what brought this to mind because she does not feel that this child should be left out and the parties would then have two children, Stephanie and whatever this child turns out to be, whether it's a boy or a girl.
Please review this with your client and get back with me[,] and if we can resolve it[,] great[,] and if not, then let's get it tried. I don't believe we've had a Pre-trial yet[,] and if your client is not willing to negotiate this item[,] then one or both of us should file a request for Pre-trial. I will await your response. 3. Neither party challenges this determination (characterized as a finding of fact) on appeal.
4. The trial court failed to identify with particularity those facts supporting its conclusion that "[t]here has been a substantial change of circumstances since the entry of the Decree of Divorce" as required. See Butler, Crockett & Walsh Dev. Corp. v. Pinecrest Pipeline Operating Co., 909 P.2d 225, 231 (Utah 1995) ("'Failure of the trial court to make findings on all material issues is reversible error unless the facts in the record are "clear, uncontroverted, and capable of supporting only a finding in favor of the judgment."'") (citations omitted). Regarding Matthew, the only apparent fact supporting the conclusion is the court's earlier ruling that Rick was legally liable under the contract. Because Rick does not raise this omission as a basis for reversal, we dispose of this appeal on other grounds.
5. We note that the trial court correctly analyzed Rick's obligations as arising under contract. Whereas the Legislature has addressed issues involving adoption and surrogate mothers, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-204 (1999) (prohibiting entry into surrogate contracts for profit and providing, inter alia, that "the surrogate mother is the mother of the child for all legal purposes"); id. §§ 78-30-1 to -19 (1996 & Supp. 1999) (outlining procedures, rights, and obligations in adoption context), when there is an artificial insemination using an anonymous donor's sperm, it has not yet addressed the rights and obligations of the parties involved, including the biological father, the biological mother and her husband, the child, or the health care provider.
6. Our disposition on this basis forecloses the need to address Rick's alternate arguments.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.