Utah Court of Appeals
Can you use contempt proceedings to modify divorce orders? Danneman v. Danneman Explained
Summary
Holly Danneman appealed the district court’s ruling overruling her objection to the domestic relations commissioner’s dismissal of her motion to hold Fred Danneman in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with accounting and disbursement obligations under their 2008 divorce order. The court found that Wife was essentially seeking to modify the 2008 order rather than enforce its existing terms.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Danneman v. Danneman clarified an important procedural distinction in post-divorce enforcement proceedings that Utah family law practitioners must understand.
Background and Facts
Fred and Holly Danneman divorced in 2006, with their decree requiring equal sharing of revenues from a film. A 2008 mediated order detailed the specific accounting and disbursement procedures. In 2009, Holly filed a motion for order to show cause, seeking to hold Fred in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with the 2008 order’s accounting provisions. The domestic relations commissioner denied the motion, finding Fred had substantially complied with the order.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Holly’s contempt motion was procedurally proper, or whether she was improperly attempting to modify the existing order under the guise of enforcement. Additional issues included the burden of proof in contempt proceedings and the district court’s attorney fee award.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Holly’s arguments “essentially evidence[d] her dissatisfaction with the 2008 Order” and that she was seeking “to expand the scope and refashion the terms of the prior order.” The court explained that Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(2) limits orders to show cause to “enforcement of an existing order,” while modifications require a petition to modify under Utah Code § 30-3-5(3) showing “compelling reasons arising from a substantial and material change in circumstances.”
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces the procedural boundaries between enforcement and modification in family law cases. Practitioners cannot circumvent modification requirements by framing substantive changes as enforcement actions. The court also clarified that while a party’s affidavit may establish prima facie grounds for an order to show cause, the burden remains on the moving party to prove contempt by clear and convincing evidence. The decision also demonstrates Utah courts’ willingness to award attorney fees under Utah Code § 30-3-3(2) when parties pursue procedurally improper claims.
Case Details
Case Name
Danneman v. Danneman
Citation
2012 UT App 249
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100824-CA
Date Decided
August 30, 2012
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A motion for order to show cause cannot be used to effectively modify the terms of an existing divorce decree; such modifications must be sought through a petition to modify under established procedures.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for attorney fee awards; plain error for unpreserved burden of proof claims
Practice Tip
When seeking changes to the terms or scope of existing divorce orders, file a petition to modify demonstrating substantial change in circumstances rather than using an order to show cause for contempt.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.