Does specifying certain portions in a notice of appeal limit appellate jurisdiction? Pulham v. Kirsling Explained

In Pulham v. Kirsling, 2019 UT 18, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical issue of appellate jurisdiction: whether specifying certain portions of a judgment in a notice of appeal limits the court’s review to only those portions.

Background and Facts

Following a lengthy divorce proceeding, Kirsling filed a notice of appeal that stated he was appealing “the final Decree of Divorce” but then specified “The Appeal is taken from such parts of the judgment as follow[s]:” listing three specific paragraphs regarding child support calculation, fees, and contempt charges. The court of appeals determined it had limited appellate jurisdiction over only those three specified issues and affirmed the district court’s orders on child support and parent-time matters.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court confronted three main issues: (1) whether the notice of appeal limited appellate jurisdiction to the specified portions; (2) whether the court of appeals correctly upheld the district court’s child support orders; and (3) whether the court of appeals properly affirmed the denial of Kirsling’s petition to modify parent-time arrangements.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court applied the correctness standard to review the court of appeals’ decision. Interpreting Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(d), which requires a notice of appeal to “designate the judgment or order, or part thereof, appealed from,” the Court held that Kirsling’s specific identification of three portions manifested a clear intent to appeal only those parts. The Court noted this construction follows the expressio unius principle—expressing one thing excludes others. On the merits, the Court found any error regarding Pulham’s stipulated income was harmless error because it likely benefited Kirsling, and affirmed that imputation of income was discretionary and properly declined without an evidentiary hearing.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the critical importance of precise drafting in notices of appeal. Practitioners must clearly indicate whether they intend to appeal an entire judgment or specific portions. When listing specific issues, courts will limit their appellate jurisdiction accordingly under Rule 3(d)’s jurisdictional requirements. The decision also reinforces that preservation of error remains essential, as Kirsling’s failure to identify the appropriate modification standard in the district court waived that argument on appeal.