Utah Caselaw Review: Miner v Miner, 2025 UT App 64

A mediation, September ’22, Settled disputes, or so they knew. John took the taxes, a hefty load, Lisa’s alimony, to a trickle slowed. But lo, a twist, just days thereafter, Lisa wed, ending alimony’s chapter.

John cried foul, claimed fraud was near, Said Lisa hid her plans, so clear. To court he went, with rule 60(b), Seeking to void the decree’s decree.

“Fraudulent nondisclosure,” he did claim, Lisa’s silence, the heart of his aim. Text messages shown, of love’s sweet bloom, Wedding rings planned, in secret’s room. Yet Lisa swore, no ring was set, Till Jeff proposed, her heart was met.

The court did ponder, with careful thought, Was duty to tell what Lisa ought? No, it ruled, no common-law bind, In litigation’s fray, no duty to find. John and Lisa, foes in court’s dance, Had tools to probe, but took no chance. Discovery’s rules, not tort’s embrace, Define what’s shared in such a case.

The decree stood firm, no fraud was found, John’s motion denied, on solid ground.

But fees awarded, to Lisa’s gain, Lacked findings clear, causing John pain. The court’s award, thus overturned, For need and means, must be discerned. Back to the judge, for fees to weigh,

In Miner v. Miner, this is the way.