Snyder v. Snyder: Too Cute by Half

Sometimes, even the courts, which are all about technicality, can be too technical.

That’s one major takeaway from Snyder v. Snyder, a recent Utah Court of Appeals case. Here are the facts, briefly:


  1. Parties divorced in 2008, reaching an agreement in mediation.
  2. In 2012, mother filed for a modification of child support.
  3. Mediation on this issue was unsuccessful, so parties went to a pretrial conference with the judge to get ready for trial.
  4. At the pretrial conference, the judge certified for trial the issue of child support. The father wanted the judge to certify parent-time and custody issues, but the judge declined, telling the father he would have to file a new petition to modify custody and parent-time, and that those issues would not be addressed at the upcoming trial.
  5. Court ordered parties to try mediation again regarding the child support issue.
  6. Parties reached an agreement in mediation addressing only child support. The stipulation contained the following language: “[this stipulation] resolve[s] all matters between the parties that are currently before the Court.”
  7. Two months after child support was modified, father filed a petition to modify custody and parent-time. Mother objected because there was no substantial change in circumstances because the previous stipulation, signed two months earlier, said all matters between parties had been resolved.
  8. The trial court accepted mother’s reasoning and dismissed father’s petition to modify, saying the stipulation took care of everything, and only two months had passed, so there couldn’t have been a substantial change in circumstance in that small a period of time.

Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeals looked at this case and disagreed with the trial court.

Essentially, the Court of Appeals said the father’s request to modify custody and parent-time was not actually an issue before the trial court when the parties signed the stipulation. While the stipulation said everything was taken care of, it was only referring to the things then before the court (i.e., child support). So, the trial court’s denial of the father’s petition to modify was poorly reasoned and was overturned.

Here’s my realistic (i.e., less legalistic) take on what happened here.

The trial court specifically told the father to go back and ask for a modification of custody and parent-time. Then when he did this, the same court precluded him from doing so. While the Court of Appeals didn’t say it this way, it told the trial court it was being too cute by half. If you tell someone what to do, then tell him, “Well, no, you can’t do exactly what I told you to do,” that’s simply not fair.

Good for the Court of Appeals.

Protect Your Money And Your Family

We remove fear associated with divorce, protect your money & maximize time with your kids!

We're here to help. Let's determine your best options.

Call Us 24//7 at 801-685-9999 to Speak with a Live Representative

Utah Divorce FAQs
Top 100 Divorce Blog
What Clients Are Saying…
Brown Family Law
Based on 803 reviews
They handled my case with the highest degree of professionalism and integrity and made every effort to be efficient and transparent with me throughout the whole process. I was told that they were the best as far as family law is concerned and I believe that praise was fully justified.
Amber McFee is always professional and great to work with. Being opposing counsel by nature is adversarial, but Amber is professional in approach while effectively advocating for her clients. She will treat you right!
Response from the owner: Thank you, Jonathan.
Overall from start to finish the best experience to have dealing with a time that is difficult.Andrew Christensen is very professional and out going to make this situation the best it could be and worked hard to make sure the divorce was fair for me.Over all, this firm really cares and treats you as a family or friend and just not a client, down to Marco Brown taking time to see how I was doing and offer to help in any way possible during my divorce while I was there for my first initial meeting.I would highly recommend anyone that has to go through a divorce to really reach out to the Brown Family Law firm and see for your self the experience I was able to receive from a top notch law firm.
Response from the owner: Devin, thank you for the kind words. Andrew appreciated the opportunity to help you with your situation.
Sophie was very helpful and explains the process and fees. Thank you!
Response from the owner: Corey, thank you for the kind words. Glad we could help.
Dani always kept me updated and has great communication skills.
Response from the owner: Thank you, Sofia.
Dani was extremely helpful and always responsive.
Response from the owner: Glad Dani did well for you.
My experience with Brown Family Law is a positive one. I highly recommend them. This firm has very good communication with their clients. Attorney Paul Waldron represents me and I’m very happy with the experience. My questions and concerns are always answered quickly and respectfully. I’m grateful to have Mr. Waldron and Brown Family Law in my corner during this difficult time for my family.
Response from the owner: Jodie, glad we were able to communicate with you so effectively and quickly. Thank you for your kind words.
I recently used Clay in a divorce case and could not have been happier. He was efficient, knowledgeable, and made me feel like I was his only client. The process was easy and he was always there to reassure me or help me with decisions. I would highly recommend Brown Family Law.
Response from the owner: Thank you, Mendi.
Dani excelled as a paralegal, providing crucial support with exceptional skills!
Response from the owner: Glad Dani did such a good job for you.
Thank you So much
Response from the owner: You're welcome. Thank you for choosing us to help you.


Related Posts