Utah Court of Appeals
Can you appeal a temporary arbitration award in Utah family law cases? Funk v. Funk Explained
Summary
Carol Funk appealed a district court order confirming an arbitrator’s temporary award regarding where a child would attend school during pending modification proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order was temporary and did not resolve all issues submitted to arbitration.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals recently clarified important jurisdictional limitations in Funk v. Funk, addressing when parties can appeal orders confirming arbitration awards in family law cases.
Background and Facts
Following their 2017 divorce, Carol and Samuel Funk both filed competing petitions to modify their divorce decree, with Carol seeking to relocate to California with sole custody and Samuel also seeking sole custody. The parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration, including a temporary decision about where one child would attend school during the pending proceedings. After the arbitrator ruled that the child should remain at his current school temporarily, the district court confirmed this temporary award. Carol then appealed this confirmation order.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether the Utah Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court order confirming a temporary arbitration award when other arbitration issues remained unresolved. Carol argued that the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act allowed immediate appeals from orders “confirming or denying confirmation of an award.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied principles of statutory interpretation to analyze the Act’s language. Notably, the Act uses different terminology in separate sections—”temporary awards” versus “awards”—leading the court to conclude these terms have distinct meanings. Under Utah Code § 81-15-123(1)(c), only orders confirming final “awards” are immediately appealable, not orders confirming “temporary awards.” Since the arbitrator’s decision was explicitly temporary and numerous issues remained for resolution, the confirmation order was not final and appealable.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that temporary arbitration awards in family law cases follow the same finality requirements as temporary court orders. Practitioners should carefully distinguish between final arbitration awards that resolve all submitted issues and temporary awards that address only interim matters. The court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, allowing Carol to appeal after a final order is entered resolving all arbitration issues.
Case Details
Case Name
Funk v. Funk
Citation
2026 UT App 28
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20251383-CA
Date Decided
February 26, 2026
Outcome
Dismissed
Holding
District court orders confirming temporary arbitration awards pending resolution of all arbitration issues are not final and appealable under the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act.
Standard of Review
Jurisdiction reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
Distinguish between ‘awards’ and ‘temporary awards’ under the Uniform Family Law Arbitration Act—only orders confirming final awards are immediately appealable.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the 10 Circuit.
Related Cases
-
Can property owners sue cities for failing to remove homeless camps?
Utah’s public duty doctrine shields government entities from liability for failing to perform duties owed to the general public unless a special relationship exists with specific individuals.
-
Does Utah governmental immunity protect EMS from routine 911 call negligence claims?
The Utah Supreme Court clarified that governmental immunity for emergency medical assistance applies only to responses to catastrophic emergencies, not routine EMS calls.
-
Can disabled applicants exceed Utah’s six-attempt bar exam limit?
The Utah Supreme Court clarified its standard of review for Utah State Bar admission decisions and affirmed denial of a petition to exceed the six-attempt bar exam limit.