Rothwell v. Rothwell
Rothwell v. Rothwell, 2023 UT App 51 (Christiansen Forster, J.)
Following a divorce decree, a district court entered a stay prohibiting Shaun Rothwell from disposing of any assets from the marital estate until the parties had finished appealing the decree to protect Jenea Rothwell’s assets. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the order, holding:
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the stay on the terms that it did. Under Utah Rules of Civil Procedure rule 62, a stay does not need to protect against a loss of ownership, liquidity, or enjoyment. Instead, a stay can be upheld if it meant to protect both parties against loss depending on the outcome of the appeal.
- Practice tip: A district court does not exceed its discretion by failing to provide for restricted access to assets unless one party asks it to include such a provision below. And one party’s access to assets during a stay does not automatically translate to a conclusion that the stay’s security is inadequate to protect the other party.