Utah Court of Appeals

Can divorce decrees be modified for substantial changes in circumstances? Hibbens v. Hibbens Explained

2015 UT App 278
No. 20140826-CA
November 19, 2015
Affirmed

Summary

Former spouses cross-petitioned to modify their 2006 divorce decree after the wife refinanced a second mortgage the husband was ordered to pay and two of three children reached adulthood. The trial court found substantial changes in circumstances, terminated the husband’s mortgage payment obligation, ended child support for adult children, and increased support for the remaining minor child.

Analysis

The Utah Court of Appeals in Hibbens v. Hibbens reaffirmed the established standard for modifying divorce decrees when circumstances substantially change after entry of the original decree.

Background and Facts

Lisa and Mark Hibbens divorced in 2006 with three minor children. The decree required Mark to pay child support and make payments on a second mortgage on Lisa’s parents’ house. After Lisa’s parents died, she refinanced the mortgage in 2008 but continued accepting Mark’s payments without informing him of the refinance. When Mark discovered the refinance in 2010, he stopped payments. By 2013, two children had reached adulthood, and Lisa had become permanently disabled. Both parties petitioned for decree modifications.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether substantial and material changes in circumstances justified modifying the husband’s mortgage payment obligation and child support duties. Key changes included the mortgage refinancing, children’s emancipation, and the wife’s permanent disability affecting her income.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court applied the abuse of discretion standard for reviewing substantial change determinations. It found that refinancing the mortgage constituted a substantial change not contemplated in the original decree, particularly since the wife had told the husband he no longer needed to make payments. For child support, the court properly terminated obligations for adult children who no longer qualified under the Utah Child Support Act and adjusted support for the remaining minor child according to statutory guidelines after finding the wife’s 53% income reduction was substantial and permanent.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that modification petitioners must prove substantial changes occurred after the decree that were not originally contemplated. Courts will not disturb trial court findings absent clear abuse of discretion. The case also demonstrates that automatic adjustment provisions in the Utah Child Support Act do not apply to deviated support orders, requiring formal modification proceedings instead.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Hibbens v. Hibbens

Citation

2015 UT App 278

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20140826-CA

Date Decided

November 19, 2015

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A trial court properly modifies a divorce decree when substantial and material changes in circumstances occur, including refinancing of mortgage obligations and changes in children’s emancipation status.

Standard of Review

Abuse of discretion for substantial change in circumstances determinations and child support modifications

Practice Tip

When seeking divorce decree modifications, document all substantial changes in circumstances with specific evidence and testimony, as courts will not disturb modifications absent clear abuse of discretion.

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

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Rokovitz v. Manley Construction

    January 9, 2025

    Trial courts err when they dismiss contract damages claims based on pleading deficiencies where the complaint meets Rule 8’s notice pleading requirements and the damages were properly disclosed through supplemental disclosures without objection.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Contract Interpretation
    • |
    • Discovery
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Ottens v. McNeil

    August 26, 2010

    A person who participates in securing a load on a truck has a direct duty not to do so negligently, and competent evidence that the defendant helped secure the load together with another person precludes directed verdict on negligent loading claims.
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    • |
    • Tort Law and Negligence
    Read More
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.