Can Utah courts modify nondisparagement clauses in divorce decrees? Robertson v. Stevens Explained

Background and Facts

In Robertson v. Stevens, a divorced husband sought to modify his divorce decree to expand a nondisparagement clause after his ex-wife published what he considered disparaging comments about him. The original decree contained only a limited nondisparagement provision prohibiting the wife from telling third parties that Stevens kicked her out of the house or stole marital assets. After the decree was entered, Robertson contributed a chapter to a book about women and marriage and made additional online posts that Stevens claimed were disparaging.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether a district court has continuing jurisdiction to modify or expand a stipulated, non-child-related nondisparagement clause contained in a final decree of divorce. Stevens argued that Robertson’s communications constituted a material change in circumstances justifying modification of the decree.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals applied the correction of error standard for questions of law regarding subject matter jurisdiction. The court emphasized that after final judgment, a district court’s power to modify judgments is severely limited to prevent endless cycles of motions for reconsideration. While Utah statutes grant courts continuing jurisdiction over child-related provisions, child support, alimony, and property distribution, no statute provides continuing jurisdiction over stipulated nondisparagement clauses unrelated to children. The court rejected Stevens’s argument that courts have broad discretionary powers to revisit divorce decree terms absent specific statutory authority.

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the critical importance of comprehensive drafting in divorce settlements. Practitioners must anticipate potential future scenarios when crafting nondisparagement clauses, as courts cannot later expand or modify these provisions. The ruling also confirms that finality of judgments principles apply with full force in family law cases, limiting post-judgment modifications to those specifically authorized by statute or rule.