Can appellants raise new statutory arguments for the first time on appeal? LaChance v. Richman Explained

In LaChance v. Richman, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a party can raise a new statutory interpretation argument for the first time on appeal, providing important guidance on preservation requirements in family law cases involving retroactive child support.

Background and Facts

Ashley Richman and Christopher LaChance, unmarried parents of a child born in 2003, separated in August 2003 and maintained informal custody and support arrangements until January 2007. When LaChance filed a paternity petition in 2007, Richman counterclaimed seeking retroactive child support from August 2003 through December 2006. At trial, the district court applied the reimbursement analysis from Department of Human Services ex rel. Parker v. Irizarry, requiring Richman to demonstrate either an agreement between the parties or unmet need on the part of the child. Finding neither, the court denied her claim for pre-petition child support.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code section 78B-12-202(4), which states that courts “shall determine and assess all arrearages based upon the guidelines described in [the Utah Child Support Act],” superseded the Irizarry reimbursement analysis for calculating pre-petition child support. This presented questions of both statutory interpretation and preservation of error.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals declined to address the merits of Richman’s statutory argument because she failed to preserve it in the trial court. Richman first raised the section 78B-12-202(4) argument in an untimely Rule 59 motion filed seven weeks after judgment, well beyond the 10-day deadline. The court emphasized that parties must present issues “to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an opportunity to rule on that issue” to preserve them for appeal. Additionally, the court noted that Richman appeared to invite error by affirmatively agreeing with the district court’s characterization of her claim as seeking “reimbursement” rather than child support.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the critical importance of raising all legal arguments, including statutory interpretation issues, during trial court proceedings rather than in post-judgment motions. Family law practitioners should carefully analyze applicable statutes and case law before trial and present comprehensive legal arguments to avoid waiver. The court’s application of the invited error doctrine also demonstrates the risks of appearing to agree with unfavorable legal characterizations during proceedings.