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.

Published On: January 15th, 2016Categories: Child SupportComments Off on Snyder v. Snyder: Too Cute by Half
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: Marco Brown
Marco C. Brown was named Utah’s Outstanding Family Law Lawyer of the Year in 2015. He graduated with distinction from the University of Nebraska College of Law in 2007 and is currently the managing partner of Brown Family Law, LLC.
Contact Us – We Are Here to Help You

Schedule a time to talk with us – we are here to help you. When you meet with your attorney, we will go over your entire case, your children, your money and everything else that’s important to you. Our goal is to remove the fear associated with divorce by protecting your money and maximizing your time with your kids, all within 3-6 months. We look forward to meeting with you!

Call us 24/7 at 801-685-9999 to Speak with a Live Representative
Get A Legal Consultation With An Experienced Utah Attorney
Your privacy is 100% guaranteed, your information will never be sold or shared.

While this website provides general information, it does not constitute divorce advice. The best way to get guidance on your specific divorce issue is to contact a lawyer. To schedule a divorce consultation with an attorney, please call or complete the intake form above.

The use of the Internet (or this form) for communication with the firm (or any individual member of the firm) does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.