Blog how to enforce orders

How to Enfoce a Divorce Decree in Utah

Divorce & Family Law Tipsriflemanlaw

How to Enfoce a Divorce Decree in Utah

By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation

A divorce decree is not a suggestion. Once a Utah court enters an order concerning child custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, property, debts, communication between the parties, or other obligations, the parties are expected to follow it.

Unfortunately, the entry of a final Decree of Divorce does not always end the conflict. Sometimes one party simply refuses to comply. Other times, a former spouse begins interpreting the decree in a way that gives that person rights the court never actually ordered.

When that happens, the question becomes: How do I enforce my divorce decree in Utah?

Utah has a specific procedure for enforcing domestic-relations orders. A party seeking enforcement generally proceeds under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 7B, Motion to Enforce Order and for Sanctions in Domestic Law Matters. If the matter will be heard by a domestic-relations commissioner, the motion must also comply with Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 101, which governs motion practice before court commissioners.

That distinction matters. Rule 7B governs the enforcement proceeding. Rule 101 governs the procedure before the commissioner. Certain provisions of Rule 7 apply where Rule 7B or Rule 101 specifically incorporates them, including Rule 7(j), which governs preparation and circulation of the written order following a commissioner hearing.

In Utah judicial districts that use domestic-relations commissioners, many post-decree motions are initially heard by a commissioner. That includes many enforcement matters involving families in Saratoga Springs, Lehi, American Fork, Eagle Mountain, Orem, Pleasant Grove, and Provo.

For additional information about enforcement generally, visit our Utah Enforcement of Court Orders practice page.

What Does It Mean to Enforce a Divorce Decree in Utah?

Enforcement and modification are two different things. If the existing decree is still appropriate but the other party is refusing to follow it, the proper remedy is generally enforcement. If circumstances have materially changed and the existing order itself should be changed, the appropriate remedy may instead be a petition to modify.

An enforcement motion is intended to enforce an existing court order. It should not be used as a substitute for a modification proceeding simply because one party now wants the decree to say something different.

For more information about the distinction, see Divorce Enforcement and Modifications in American Fork, Utah and What Is a Substantial and Material Change for Modifying a Divorce Decree in Utah?.

A Recent Example: When a Parenting Disagreement Becomes an Enforcement Issue

A recent case provides a good example of how an ordinary parenting disagreement can turn into a decree-enforcement issue.

The parties had a recently entered court order containing provisions intended to keep their child out of adult disputes and prohibit disparaging conduct between the parents.

During the child’s soccer practice, one parent approached the other parent and initiated a confrontation in front of the child and a number of other people. The confrontation included profanity and disparaging language, including a vulgar insult directed at the other parent in the child’s presence.

The dispute also involved the other parent’s decision to enroll the child in a weekend outdoors course during that parent’s own parent-time. The complaining parent characterized the enrollment as a joint legal-custody decision because the activity involved an educational course.

That illustrates an important point in Utah custody cases: the language of the actual decree controls.

Joint legal custody does not automatically mean that every activity involving a class, lesson, course, sport, hobby, or recreational program requires the advance approval of both parents. The court’s actual custody order and parenting plan should be reviewed to determine which decisions must be made jointly and which parental decisions may be made during that parent’s own parent-time.

Calling an activity “educational” does not necessarily transform it into the type of major legal-custody decision contemplated by the decree. More importantly, even a legitimate disagreement concerning legal custody ordinarily does not authorize either parent to disregard a separate provision prohibiting disparagement, public confrontation, profanity directed toward the other parent, or involving the child in adult disputes.

In a situation like this, an audio recording, transcript, contemporaneous text messages, witnesses, and the exact language of the decree may transform what might otherwise sound like competing accusations into a documented evidentiary record.

What Must Be Proven for Contempt in a Utah Divorce Case?

Utah Code section 78B-6-301(5) identifies disobedience of a lawful judgment, order, or process of the court as contempt.

But an alleged violation of an order and a finding of contempt are not automatically the same thing.

The Utah Supreme Court explained in Von Hake v. Thomas, 759 P.2d 1162, 1172 (Utah 1988), that, as a general rule, a party seeking a contempt finding for violation of a court order must establish that the person accused of contempt:

  • knew what the order required;
  • had the ability to comply with the order; and
  • intentionally failed or refused to comply.

In a civil contempt proceeding, those elements generally must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

The Utah Court of Appeals reiterated those requirements in Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, 2022 UT App 28. The court also emphasized that the underlying order must be sufficiently specific and definite before contempt sanctions are appropriate.

That is why the first question in almost every Utah divorce decree enforcement case should be:

What exact paragraph of the decree was violated, and exactly what did that paragraph require?

How Do I Enforce My Divorce Decree in Utah?

The exact procedure will depend upon the facts of the case, the language of the decree, the judicial district, and whether a commissioner will hear the motion. But the practical process often looks like this.

1. Clearly Communicate the Violation

Before immediately returning to court, identify the exact provision of the decree or order that has allegedly been violated.

A written communication should identify:

  • the order or decree involved;
  • the specific paragraph or provision involved;
  • the conduct believed to violate the order;
  • what the order actually requires; and
  • what compliance is expected going forward.

A written demand is not necessarily a procedural prerequisite to every Rule 7B enforcement motion. But it is often good practice. It gives the other party a reasonable opportunity to correct the conduct without additional litigation. It also reduces the likelihood of a later claim that the other party did not understand what was expected and creates a written record demonstrating that compliance was requested. The communication should be direct and professional. Cite the decree. Identify the conduct. State what needs to occur. Do not allow the demand itself to become another argument.

2. Follow Any Dispute-Resolution Requirement in the Decree

Before filing anything, read the decree and parenting plan carefully.

Many Utah divorce decrees and parenting plans require some form of dispute resolution before the parties return to court. This may include mediation or another specified procedure. If the order requires mediation before enforcement litigation, request mediation promptly unless the decree contains an exception or the circumstances justify immediate court intervention.

A party seeking enforcement should generally be able to tell the commissioner: I followed the order before asking the court to enforce the order.

For more information about resolving post-divorce disputes through mediation, visit our Lehi Divorce Mediation Lawyer page or our Utah Divorce Mediation practice page.

3. Prepare the Motion to Enforce, Verification or Affidavit, and Supporting Evidence

Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 7B governs a Motion to Enforce Order and for Sanctions in a domestic-relations case.

The motion must identify the title and date of entry of the order being enforced. The motion must also either be verified or be accompanied by at least one supporting affidavit based upon personal knowledge. The verified motion or affidavit must set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence and that would support a finding that the opposing party violated the order.

Depending upon the issue, supporting evidence may include:

  • text messages;
  • emails;
  • audio recordings;
  • transcripts;
  • photographs;
  • receipts;
  • bank records;
  • payment histories;
  • calendars;
  • school records;
  • witness declarations; or
  • other documents demonstrating what occurred.

If the motion will be heard by a commissioner, Rule 101 must also be followed.

Rule 101 requires evidence supporting the motion to be presented through an affidavit, declaration, or other admissible evidence. Exhibits must have the necessary foundation.

Rule 101 also places important limitations on voluminous exhibits. Collections of documents such as bank statements, checks, receipts, medical records, photographs, emails, text messages, calendars, and journal entries that collectively exceed ten pages generally must be presented through an appropriate summary, chart, or calculation under Utah Rule of Evidence 1006.

Rule 101 also generally limits each party to 25 total pages for a hearing, subject to specified exclusions and any permission obtained from the commissioner to exceed the limit. The point is not to give the court every text message the parties have exchanged during the past five years. The point is to provide the evidence necessary to prove the specific violation at issue.

4. File the Rule 7B Enforcement Materials and Obtain a Hearing Date

Rule 7B requires a domestic-relations enforcement motion to be filed in the same case in which the underlying order or decree was entered.

The Rule 7B filing is initiated as an ex parte Motion to Enforce Order and for Sanctions, if sanctions are requested.

The filing should include the materials required by Rule 7B, including:

  • the Motion to Enforce;
  • the verification or supporting affidavit;
  • supporting exhibits and other evidence;
  • the required Request to Submit for Decision; and
  • a proposed Order to Attend Hearing.

The proposed Order to Attend Hearing identifies the order being enforced, describes the relief requested, states whether contempt is being sought, and directs the other party to appear at the hearing.

Because the initial Rule 7B motion is filed ex parte, Rule 101(a)(5) also directs an ex parte motion before a commissioner to Rule 7(m). That does not mean ordinary Rule 7 motion practice replaces Rule 101. Once the enforcement matter is before the commissioner, the commissioner-specific procedures and deadlines in Rule 101 apply along with the specialized requirements of Rule 7B.

5. Serve the Motion and Court-Issued Order to Attend Hearing

After the court issues the Order to Attend Hearing, the moving party must properly serve the required documents.

Under Rule 7B, the Order to Attend Hearing, Motion to Enforce, and supporting affidavits generally must be served at least 28 days before the hearing.

If the nonmoving party is represented by counsel in the case, service is generally made upon counsel of record in accordance with Rule 5. If the nonmoving party is not represented by counsel in the case, Rule 7B generally requires service in a manner provided by Rule 4.

This can become particularly important when an attorney recently withdrew. A former spouse does not become immune from an enforcement proceeding merely because that person is temporarily unrepresented. The required method of service may change, but the existing decree remains enforceable.

6. Attend the Hearing and Prove the Violation

Rule 7B places the burden of proof on the moving party as to the claims contained in the Motion to Enforce.

At the hearing, the presentation should be organized around five basic points:

Order. Conduct. Evidence. Violation. Remedy.

Identify the paragraph of the decree. Explain what it requires. Establish that the other party knew what was required. Present the evidence showing what happened. Then explain exactly what relief you want the court to order.

For example, if the issue involves disparagement:

  • identify the paragraph prohibiting disparagement;
  • identify the exact conduct or statement;
  • identify when and where it occurred;
  • establish whether the child was present;
  • present the recording, transcript, declaration, or other evidence; and
  • tell the court exactly what relief is requested.

If the dispute concerns money, identify what the decree required, when payment was due, what was paid, what remains unpaid, and the financial evidence supporting the calculation.

If the issue concerns denied parent-time, identify the ordered exchange, what actually happened, the communications between the parties, and the requested make-up parent-time or other remedy.

A focused presentation is generally more effective than asking the commissioner to sort through years of unrelated marital history.

For additional information concerning local enforcement proceedings, visit our Saratoga Springs Divorce Enforcement Lawyer, Lehi Divorce Enforcement Lawyer, or Eagle Mountain Divorce Enforcement Lawyer pages.

What Can the Court Do if the Decree Was Violated?

The available remedy depends upon the provision violated, the evidence presented, and whether contempt is established.

Depending upon the circumstances, requested relief may include:

  • an order compelling compliance;
  • payment of amounts owed;
  • reimbursement of expenses;
  • make-up parent-time;
  • remedial sanctions;
  • a finding of contempt;
  • compensation for losses caused by contempt;
  • attorney fees and costs; or
  • other appropriate relief.

Utah Code section 78B-6-310 establishes statutory sanctions that may be imposed for contempt. Utah Code section 78B-6-311 also provides remedies where an actual loss or injury results from contempt.

Attorney fees can also be significant in enforcement proceedings. Utah Code section 81-1-203 contains a specific attorney-fee provision for actions to enforce orders concerning custody, parent-time, child support, alimony, or division of property in a domestic case.

For a more detailed discussion of attorney fees, see When Attorney Fees Can Be Awarded in a Utah Divorce or Custody Case and Getting Your Attorney Fees in Family Law Matters in Lehi.

What Happens After the Commissioner Rules?

7. If You Are Asked to Prepare the Order, Obtain the Hearing Audio

At the conclusion of the hearing, listen carefully to the commissioner’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation.

If the commissioner directs one party to prepare the written order, that party’s responsibility is to accurately memorialize what the commissioner actually decided.

It is not an opportunity to improve the ruling, expand the ruling, insert additional findings, or add provisions that counsel wishes the commissioner had made.

I prefer to promptly request the hearing audio and prepare a working transcript of the portions containing the commissioner’s findings, conclusions, rulings, and recommendations.

The proposed order can then be compared directly against the record.

This is particularly important when the parties disagree about whether certain language was actually stated from the bench.

8. Draft and Circulate the Proposed Order Under Rule 101(p) and Rule 7(j)

This is one of the places where Rule 7 specifically applies in a commissioner proceeding.

Rule 101(p) expressly provides that Rule 7(j) governs preparation of a proposed order following a hearing before a court commissioner unless the commissioner directs otherwise.

Under Rule 7(j), the party directed to prepare the proposed order generally has 14 days to prepare an order confirming the court’s decision and serve the proposed order upon the other parties for review and approval as to form.

Approval “as to form” does not mean a party agrees with the ruling.

It means the proposed written order accurately reflects what the commissioner actually decided.

9. Allow the Seven-Day Objection-to-Form Period to Run and File the Proposed Order

Under Rule 7(j), a party may object to the form of the proposed order within seven days after the proposed order is served.

If all parties approve the form of the order, the preparing party may file it with the court.

If the seven-day period expires without an objection, the preparing party may file the proposed order in accordance with Rule 7(j), together with the required certification concerning service of the proposed order.

If an objection to form is filed, the party preparing the order may file the proposed order and respond to the objection as permitted by Rule 7(j).

Some courts or practitioners also use an appropriate Notice or Request to Submit to bring the proposed order to the court’s attention after the objection period expires. However, a separate Notice to Submit is not itself expressly required by Rule 7(j). The governing requirement is compliance with the procedure contained in Rule 7(j).

10. The Court Reviews and Enters the Written Order

The court may sign the proposed order, revise its language, reject provisions that do not accurately reflect the ruling, or direct counsel to make specified corrections.

Once entered, the written order becomes part of the enforceable record of the case.

Do Not Confuse a Rule 7(j) Objection With a Rule 108 Objection

There is an important procedural difference between objecting to the form of the proposed written order and objecting to the substance of the commissioner’s recommendation.

A Rule 7(j) objection argues that the proposed written order does not accurately reflect what the commissioner actually decided.

A Rule 108 objection asks the assigned district court judge to review the commissioner’s recommendation itself.

Under the current version of Rule 108, a party generally has 14 days after the recommendation is made in open court to file a written objection. If the commissioner takes the matter under advisement, the 14-day period generally runs from service of the minute entry containing the recommendation.

These are two different objections addressing two different issues. Objecting to the form of an order is not a substitute for a timely Rule 108 objection to the commissioner’s substantive ruling.

Why Evidence Matters More Than Anger

Post-divorce enforcement cases often involve people who are understandably frustrated.

But frustration is not evidence.

A commissioner is generally more interested in a concise chronology supported by admissible evidence than in hearing an extended argument concerning everything the former spouse has done wrong since the divorce.

If the issue is disparagement, identify the statement, who heard it, whether the child was present, and the paragraph prohibiting the conduct.

If the issue is money, identify the amount ordered, the due date, the amount paid, the amount remaining, and the records establishing the calculation.

If the issue is parent-time, identify the ordered schedule, the missed exchange, the relevant communications, and the requested remedy.

Rule 101 makes that discipline even more important because commissioner proceedings contain page limits and specific requirements concerning exhibits and voluminous evidence.

More evidence is not necessarily better evidence. The right evidence is what matters.

Do Not Respond to One Violation by Committing Another

One of the worst strategic mistakes a divorced parent can make is responding to the other person’s alleged violation by violating the decree themselves.

If the other parent fails to reimburse a medical expense, that generally does not authorize withholding parent-time.

If the other parent fails to pay support, that does not automatically authorize ignoring the parenting schedule.

If the other parent makes an inappropriate statement, that does not excuse your own violation of a non-disparagement provision.

Document the violation. Communicate the problem. Follow any required dispute-resolution procedure. Then use the court’s enforcement process if necessary.

Enforcement Is Not the Same as Modification

Sometimes the other party is violating a perfectly workable decree. That is generally an enforcement problem.

Other times, circumstances have changed and the existing order itself no longer works. That may require modification.

In some cases both issues exist at the same time.

For example, one parent may presently be violating a parent-time schedule while also arguing that the schedule should be changed. Unless and until the court modifies the existing order, however, the existing order remains the order the parties are expected to follow.

For more information, read What Is a Substantial and Material Change for Modifying a Divorce Decree in Utah? or visit our Saratoga Springs Divorce Modification Lawyer page.

Utah Divorce Decree Enforcement Representation

Rifleman Law & Mediation represents parties seeking and defending enforcement of divorce decrees, custody orders, parent-time provisions, support orders, property provisions, and other domestic-relations orders throughout Utah County and surrounding areas.

For additional local information, visit:

Rifleman Law & Mediation serves clients throughout Saratoga Springs, Lehi, Eagle Mountain, American Fork, Pleasant Grove, Lindon, Orem, Provo, Bluffdale, Riverton, Herriman, Tooele, and surrounding Utah communities. You can review our complete Utah Family Law Service Areas directory for additional information.

A Court Order Has to Mean Something

A divorce decree is intended to establish boundaries, obligations, and predictable rules after the marriage ends.

When one party is permitted to repeatedly disregard those provisions without consequence, the decree begins to lose its practical value.

Not every disagreement requires a Motion to Enforce. Litigation should not become the parties’ default method of communication.

But repeated, intentional, or significant violations should not simply become the new normal either.

The strongest Utah divorce decree enforcement cases usually share the same basic characteristics:

  • a clear court order;
  • a clearly identifiable violation;
  • reliable and admissible evidence;
  • a reasonable effort to obtain voluntary compliance when appropriate;
  • compliance with any required dispute-resolution procedure; and
  • a focused request asking the court to enforce what it already ordered.

If you need assistance with a Motion to Enforce a Divorce Decree in Utah, Rifleman Law & Mediation represents clients in post-decree enforcement, contempt proceedings, parent-time disputes, support enforcement, property enforcement, mediation, and divorce decree modifications.

Call Rifleman Law & Mediation at 801-510-0503 for a free and confidential consultation.

This article provides general information regarding Utah law and court procedure and is not legal advice concerning any particular case. The language of the specific decree or order is critical to an enforcement analysis. Court rules, statutes, and appellate decisions may change.