Can postnuptial agreements in Utah override statutory child support guidelines? Reese v. Reese Explained

Background and Facts

MaKaibree and Kylan Reese divorced in 2021 following an uncontested proceeding. In 2017, during their marriage, they had executed a postnuptial agreement requiring Kylan to pay monthly child support of either $2,500 or half his monthly salary, whichever was greater, in the event of divorce. This provision was incorporated into their divorce decree. Years later, Kylan realized he was paying more than double what he would owe under applicable statutory guidelines and filed a rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside the child support provision as void.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code § 81-3-203(2), which prohibits premarital agreements from affecting a child’s right to support, also applies to postnuptial agreements. Kylan argued the child support provision was void ab initio because it violated this statutory prohibition. The court also addressed the narrow circumstances under which a judgment may be considered void under rule 60(b)(4).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion. The court applied the correctness standard of review for rule 60(b)(4) motions challenging judgments as void. The court held that Utah Code § 81-3-203(2) applies only to “premarital agreements” by its plain terms and does not extend to postnuptial agreements. The court emphasized that statutory language should not be rewritten on policy grounds when the text is clear. Additionally, the court noted that Utah law permits parties to agree to child support amounts exceeding statutory guidelines.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah’s restrictions on agreements affecting child support apply only to premarital agreements, not postnuptial agreements executed during marriage. Practitioners should carefully distinguish between these agreement types when advising clients. The ruling also reinforces that void judgments are narrowly construed and typically involve jurisdictional defects or due process violations, not disagreements with substantive terms that were validly agreed upon.