Utah Court of Appeals
What burden applies when objecting to a commissioner's recommendation under Rule 108? Day v. Barnes Explained
Summary
Mother and father disputed custody and relocation of their child. The district court denied the mother’s motion to relocate after determining she failed to demonstrate the commissioner’s recommendation was incorrect. The court of appeals found the district court misinterpreted Rule 108 and vacated the order.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals clarified an important procedural standard in Day v. Barnes, addressing what burden applies when a party objects to a commissioner’s recommendation under Rule 108 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Background and Facts
Macaela Day and Tyler Barnes, parents of a child born in 2010, had a lengthy custody dispute. After Day moved to Utah in 2015, she provided notice of her intent to relocate back to Massachusetts. When Barnes opposed the relocation, Day filed a motion to relocate. A commissioner heard the motion and recommended denial. Day objected to the commissioner’s recommendation, and the district court held an evidentiary hearing. The district court concluded that Day bore the burden of demonstrating the commissioner’s recommendation was incorrect and denied her motion to relocate.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether Rule 108 places a burden on the objecting party to prove the commissioner’s recommendation was erroneous. Day argued the district court misinterpreted Rule 108 by imposing such a burden.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court of appeals found the district court’s interpretation erroneous. Rule 108(f) explicitly requires the judge to make independent findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence. The court explained that Rule 108(b)’s requirement that objections explain why findings or recommendations are incorrect constitutes a briefing requirement, not a burden of proof. The rule does not provide for appeal-like review but instead mandates independent review by the district court. The court emphasized that district courts often conduct evidentiary hearings on objections and must allow live testimony in domestic relations matters when requested.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that practitioners need not overcome a presumption favoring the commissioner’s recommendation. Instead, district courts must conduct truly independent review. The decision also addresses cross-appeal issues regarding automatic custody modifications, concluding that courts may address present best interests by outlining different custody arrangements based on where a parent chooses to reside.
Case Details
Case Name
Day v. Barnes
Citation
2018 UT App 143
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20160974-CA
Date Decided
July 27, 2018
Outcome
Vacated and Remanded
Holding
Rule 108 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure does not place a burden on the objecting party to demonstrate that a commissioner’s recommendation was erroneous, but instead requires the district court to make independent findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence.
Standard of Review
The district court’s interpretation of a rule of civil procedure presents a question of law reviewed for correctness; custody determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion, but to the extent based on conclusions of law, reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
When objecting to a commissioner’s recommendation under Rule 108, remember that the district court must conduct an independent review and make its own findings rather than requiring you to prove the commissioner erred.
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.