Court Opinion

ID: 9949560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 20:17:19.137838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:48.934766
License: Public Domain

2024 UT App 6

               THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

                       RHONDA S. HOLT,
                           Appellee,
                              v.
                    CHRISTOPHER JOHN HOLT,
                          Appellant.

                             Opinion
                         No. 20220090-CA
                      Filed January 11, 2024

           Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
               The Honorable Andrew H. Stone
                          No. 044902588

            Ben W. Lieberman, Attorney for Appellant
           Matthew A. Steward and Katherine E. Pepin,
                    Attorneys for Appellee

    JUDGE GREGORY K. ORME authored this Opinion, in which
        JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER and
              DAVID N. MORTENSEN concurred.

ORME, Judge:

¶1      Christopher and Rhonda Holt’s divorce was finalized in
2004 after the entry of a stipulated settlement agreement and the
district court’s entry of a divorce decree. Per the divorce decree,
Rhonda 1 was awarded a commercial property in which she
operated a salon and Christopher was awarded an equity interest
in the property redeemable “when the property is sold.” From the
time the court entered the divorce decree, Rhonda operated the

1. Because the parties share the same last name, we refer to them
by their first names, with no disrespect intended by the apparent
informality.
                            Holt v. Holt

salon and did not sell the property or satisfy Christopher’s
outstanding interest.

¶2      Years later, Christopher petitioned the district court asking
that it require Rhonda to sell the property and satisfy his equity
interest, first on the rationale of modifying the divorce decree and
later on the rationale of enforcing it. He contended that because
“Utah law implies a reasonable time under the circumstances,”
the court should compel Rhonda to sell the property. The district
court ultimately determined that Rhonda had no obligation to sell
the property and declined to impose any deadline by which she
had to do so. But under Utah law, a reasonable time for
performance will be implied if a contract fails to include a specific
time for performance. And on the facts of this case, we conclude
that a reasonable time for Rhonda’s performance extends to the
time when she ceases to operate a salon on the property.

                         BACKGROUND

¶3     Christopher and Rhonda were married in 1988. In 2004,
Rhonda filed a complaint for divorce, and soon after, the district
court granted Rhonda’s motion for default judgment. The court
then entered a divorce decree based on the parties’ Stipulation
and Settlement Agreement (the stipulation). The record reflects
that when the stipulation was entered, each party was
represented by counsel. Christopher’s counsel withdrew after the
stipulation was filed, just prior to entry of the decree.

                   The Stipulation and the Decree

¶4     The stipulation included an integration clause indicating
that it was the parties’ final agreement. Specifically, it was “a
complete settlement of all rights either party may have in the
other’s property” and any “valid” modification or waiver of the
stipulation’s terms must be “in writing and signed by both parties
before a notary public.” The stipulation provided that neither

 20220090-CA                     2                  2024 UT App 6
                             Holt v. Holt

party would receive alimony. Pursuant to the stipulation, the
district court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and
a divorce decree that mirrored the provisions of the stipulation.

¶5     At the heart of this matter is section 9(B) of the decree. First,
it awarded Rhonda the salon property and ordered Christopher
to “execute a quit claim deed” in her favor. Second, it reserved for
Christopher “an equitable lien for one-half of the net equity in the
property when the property is sold.” Third, it defined net equity
as “the gross selling price less realtor commissions and normal
closing costs.” And fourth, it reiterated that Christopher “shall
only be entitled to his equity when the property is sold.” The
preceding section—section 9(A)—awarded Rhonda the parties’
home “free and clear from any claim by” Christopher and
instructed that Christopher was to “execute a quit-claim deed in
favor of” Rhonda within ten days following entry of the decree. It
is noteworthy that section 9(B), in contrast to section 9(A), did not
include a specific timeframe related to Rhonda’s satisfaction of
Christopher’s equity interest in the property.

                  The Petition to Modify the Decree

¶6     In October 2018, over fourteen years after the decree was
entered, Christopher filed a petition to modify the decree,
claiming “a material and unforeseeable substantial change of
circumstances.” Specifically, the petition indicated that “the
parties did not anticipate that fourteen years would pass” during
which Christopher’s equity interest in the property would go
unpaid. Christopher sought an order compelling Rhonda to either
sell or refinance the property and to satisfy Christopher’s
outstanding interest.

¶7     In response, Rhonda moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground that Christopher had failed to support his assertion of a
material and unforeseeable change in circumstances warranting
the requested modification of the decree. Rhonda acknowledged
that Christopher would be entitled to have his equity interest in

 20220090-CA                       3                  2024 UT App 6
                           Holt v. Holt

the property cashed out, but she argued that under the plain
language of the decree, he was entitled to payment only when the
property was sold, which had not yet occurred. Rhonda noted
that the parties’ circumstances had not materially changed since
the court entered the decree in 2004—she had not sold or
refinanced the property and she continued to operate her salon on
the property. Quoting Land v. Land, 605 P.2d 1248 (Utah 1980),
Rhonda argued that “when a decree is based upon a property
settlement agreement, forged by the parties and sanctioned by the
court, equity must take such agreement into consideration.” Id. at
1250–51. She noted our Supreme Court’s position that “[e]quity is
not available to reinstate rights and privileges voluntarily
contracted away simply because one has come to regret the
bargain made.” Id. at 1251. Rhonda asserted that the decree does
not impose a deadline by which she had to sell the property and
“clearly withholds distribution” of Christopher’s interest in the
property until it is sold. Thus, she maintained that Christopher
“failed to demonstrate that there has been a substantial change in
circumstances that was not [contemplated] by the parties at the
time the decree was entered.”

¶8     In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Christopher
claimed that he was not represented by counsel during the
divorce action and thus was not involved in drafting the decree. 2
He also claimed that he relied on representations Rhonda made
both before and after entry of the decree that she would refinance
or sell the property “in the very near future to pay him out.”
Christopher asserted that prior to the divorce, the parties had
received an $84,000 loan from his parents to purchase the
property and that when his parents passed away some years later,

2. Christopher, then represented by new counsel, may have been
confused about this because the decree was entered on the basis
of his default. But the record in this case demonstrates that
Christopher was represented by counsel right up until the time
the decree was entered on the basis of his stipulated default.

 20220090-CA                    4                2024 UT App 6
                            Holt v. Holt

$84,000 was taken out of his inheritance to pay the obligation.
Christopher argued that under the plain language of the decree
and under Rhonda’s suggested interpretation of section 9(B), he
“could die and not receive any benefit from the agreement” and
he could potentially lose his interest in the property if Rhonda
were to pass away or transfer the property to someone else,
thereby avoiding the satisfaction of Christopher’s equity interest.

¶9     Rhonda responded that the petition before the court was
one to modify the decree based on a theory of material change of
circumstances—not one to enforce the decree. She argued that this
was really a situation of unilateral mistake on his part, and she
reiterated her position that hindsight and dissatisfaction with a
prior stipulation are not adequate grounds for relieving parties of
their contractual obligations. Rhonda again acknowledged her
obligation to pay Christopher his share of the equity when the
property is sold, but she pointed out that the decree did not
specify a sale deadline. She also noted that it would have been
very easy to incorporate such a date into the stipulation and the
decree if that had been the parties’ intention. To support this
position, Rhonda pointed out that section 9(A) of the decree
imposed a ten-day deadline for Christopher’s delivery of a
quitclaim deed to the parties’ home, while section 9(B), which
dealt with the sale of the salon property, included no provision
concerning the time for performance.

¶10 Christopher requested that the court hold an evidentiary
hearing concerning Rhonda’s motion to dismiss. But the district
court denied this request and also denied Rhonda’s motion to
dismiss. Eventually, a trial date was set. And at the ensuing bench
trial, 3 at which both Christopher and Rhonda testified, the district

3. With no transcript of the bench trial submitted by Christopher,
we rely on the minutes of the proceedings found in the record. Cf.
In re A. Dean Harding Marital & Family Trust, 2023 UT App 81, ¶ 85,
                                                     (continued…)

 20220090-CA                     5                  2024 UT App 6
                            Holt v. Holt

court granted Rhonda’s motion for a directed verdict and
dismissed the petition on the ground that Christopher had failed
to provide sufficient evidence to support the petition. 4

                 The Motion to Enforce the Decree

¶11 In July 2021, Christopher filed a motion to enforce the
decree in a renewed effort to compel Rhonda’s sale of the salon
property. Christopher argued that under the principles
articulated in New York Avenue LLC v. Harrison, 2016 UT App 240,
391 P.3d 268, cert. denied, 393 P.3d 283 (Utah 2017), the decree’s
lack of an “expressly-stated time[] for performance” signified that
the court should impose a “reasonable time under the
circumstances” by which Rhonda had to sell the property and that
such a time had already passed. See id. ¶ 32 (quotation simplified).

¶12 In response, Rhonda argued that the motion to enforce was
simply Christopher’s attempt to get a “third bite at the apple.”
Similar to her response to the petition to modify, Rhonda argued
that Christopher failed to present sufficient credible evidence to
support his contention that the parties’ intent was anything other
than to afford Christopher his interest in the property when
Rhonda sold it. She contended that because the salon on the
property was her “sole source of income,” the parties deliberately
omitted any specific performance deadline, providing instead—
and explicitly emphasizing—that Christopher would be entitled

536 P.3d 38 (stating that “when an appellant fails to provide an
adequate record on appeal, we presume the regularity of the
proceedings below”) (quotation simplified).

4. In May 2021, Christopher appealed, requesting that this court
review the dismissal of the petition to modify and “all subsidiary
rulings and orders leading to final judgment,” but he moved to
voluntarily dismiss this appeal shortly thereafter, which motion
this court granted.

 20220090-CA                     6                  2024 UT App 6
                          Holt v. Holt

to payment for his interest when, and only when, the property
was sold. Rhonda asserted that it would therefore be
inappropriate for the court to impose a reasonable time by which
she had to sell the property when the decree’s plain language was
straightforward and explicitly did not include one.

¶13 In October 2021, Commissioner Russell Minas heard
argument on the motion. The commissioner concluded that
“[b]ecause there [was] no deadline provided by the parties, Utah
law implies a reasonable time under the circumstances,” see id.,
which he determined to be “until [Rhonda] ceases to use the
Property to operate a business.” The commissioner thereafter
issued his recommendation in the matter. See Utah R. Civ. P.
108(a) (“A recommendation of a court commissioner is the order
of the court until modified by the court.”).

¶14 Christopher subsequently filed an objection to the
recommendation pursuant to rule 108 of the Utah Rules of Civil
Procedure. See id. (“A party may file a written objection to the
recommendation within 14 days after the recommendation is
made in open court[.]”). Christopher acknowledged that the
commissioner correctly determined that the reasonable-time rule
articulated in New York Avenue applied to this case. But he
challenged the commissioner’s application of the rule. He argued
that the “reasonable time under the circumstances is determined
by looking to the intention of the parties at the time of the
formation of the contract” and that in so doing, it is clear the
reasonable-time threshold had already passed because neither the
stipulation nor the decree intended for Rhonda “to retain the
Property and all equity so long as she operated a business.”
Rhonda yielded to the commissioner’s interpretation of a
reasonable time, arguing that the commissioner correctly defined
a reasonable time under all the circumstances.

 20220090-CA                   7                 2024 UT App 6
                            Holt v. Holt

¶15 The district court heard argument on Christopher’s
objection. 5 The court overruled Christopher’s objection from the
bench and modified the commissioner’s recommendation. The
court concluded that a reasonable time for performance should
not be implied here because, per the language of the decree,
Rhonda’s deadline to sell the property was whenever she chose to
sell it and that “it would be inappropriate for the Court to impose
a date by which the Property must be sold.”

¶16    Christopher appeals.

            ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶17 Christopher primarily argues that the district court erred
in concluding that the reasonable-time rule was inapplicable here.
“We interpret a divorce decree according to established rules of
contract interpretation.” Mitchell v. Mitchell, 2011 UT App 41, ¶ 5,
248 P.3d 65 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 255 P.3d 684 (Utah

5. As with the bench trial, Christopher did not request a transcript
of this hearing and we therefore rely on the minutes of the
proceedings found in the appellate record to understand what
occurred during the hearing. See supra note 3. While it perhaps is
not always necessary to include a transcript of hearings in the
appellate record, we have previously determined that a transcript
“is necessary in cases where the court issued an oral ruling at the
conclusion of the hearing and where the court’s eventual written
order is silent with regard to the matter being challenged.” In re
A. Dean Harding Marital & Family Trust, 2023 UT App 81, ¶ 86, 536
P.3d 38. “In such cases, a transcript of the hearing is necessary for
us to effectively review the challenged issue” because without it
“we do not know what evidence or argument the court relied on
in rendering any decision.” Id. While we do have a spartan
description of the hearing included in the court’s minutes, which
is not without utility, we discourage parties from relying wholly
on the court’s minutes when a transcript is readily available.

 20220090-CA                     8                  2024 UT App 6
                            Holt v. Holt

2011). Accordingly, we review the district court’s interpretation of
the decree for correctness. See Mintz v. Mintz, 2023 UT App 17,
¶ 14, 525 P.3d 534, cert. denied, 531 P.3d 730 (Utah 2023).

¶18 Christopher also argues that the court “exceeded the
scope” of his objection when it addressed “matters not before the
court.” The scope of a court’s review of a commissioner’s
recommendation turns on the correct interpretation of the
applicable rule of civil procedure. Cf. Zions Bancorporation, NA v.
Schwab, 2023 UT App 105, ¶ 12, 537 P.3d 273 (holding that the
district court’s “statutory interpretation” is reviewed “for
correctness”) (quotation simplified); Bermes v. Summit County,
2023 UT App 94, ¶ 28, 536 P.3d 111 (stating that a district court’s
“interpretation of a set of statues or ordinances” is reviewed “for
correctness”) (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 2023 WL 9058850
(Utah 2023).

                            ANALYSIS

          I. Reasonable Time Under the Circumstances

¶19 Christopher first challenges the district court’s conclusion
that “it would be inappropriate for the Court to impose a date by
which the property must be sold.” He asserts that the court’s
conclusion is incorrect, that the reasonable-time rule is applicable
here, that a reasonable time has long since elapsed, and that
Rhonda should be compelled to sell the property and satisfy his
equity interest. We determine that the district court’s conclusion
was incorrect and conclude that the reasonable-time rule is
applicable in this matter. We then determine what constitutes a
reasonable time for Rhonda’s performance under the
circumstances.

¶20 A stipulated divorce decree represents an enforceable
contract between divorcing spouses, and so “we interpret the
parties’ decree according to established rules of contract

 20220090-CA                     9                 2024 UT App 6
                            Holt v. Holt

interpretation.” Thayer v. Thayer, 2016 UT App 146, ¶ 17, 378 P.3d
1232 (quotation simplified). Of course, “the cardinal rule in
contract interpretation is to give effect to the intentions of the
parties as they are expressed in the plain language of the contract
itself,” and “we construe a contract to give effect to the object and
purpose of the parties in making the agreement.” New York
Avenue LLC v. Harrison, 2016 UT App 240, ¶ 21, 391 P.3d 268
(quotation simplified), cert. denied, 393 P.3d 283 (Utah 2017). Key
to the issue before us, our principles of contract interpretation
further provide “that if a contract fails to specify a time of
performance the law implies that it shall be done within a
reasonable time under the circumstances,” id. ¶ 32 (quotation
simplified), which analysis entails a question of fact, see iDrive
Logistics LLC v. IntegraCore LLC, 2018 UT App 40, ¶ 55, 424 P.3d
970, cert. denied, 425 P.3d 803 (Utah 2018).

¶21 The parties agree on the basic meaning of the terms
contained in section 9(B) of the decree. They accept that under
section 9(B), Rhonda was awarded ownership of the property,
Christopher was required to “execute a quit claim deed” in
Rhonda’s favor while reserving for himself “an equitable lien for
one-half of the net equity of the property when the property is
sold,” and that Christopher would “only be entitled to his equity
when the property is sold.” Further, both parties acknowledge
that section 9(B) does not include a date by which the property
was required to be sold. Based on this understanding, Christopher
argues that the district court’s conclusion was incorrect, that the
reasonable-time rule does apply, and that Rhonda should be
compelled to sell the property immediately, a reasonable time
having long since come and gone, or else his interest “could
remain trapped forever.”

¶22 Christopher asserts that under our decision in New York
Avenue, the district court should be required to apply the
reasonable-time rule based on the reality that section 9(B) did not
include a specified time of performance. In that case, a seller

 20220090-CA                     10                 2024 UT App 6
                            Holt v. Holt

contracted with a buyer for the sale of certain real estate. 2016 UT
App 240, ¶ 3. Due to unforeseen complications, the transaction
was not settled on the date intended by the contract. Id. ¶¶ 5–6.
The buyer, still desiring to be bound by the terms of the contract,
elected to begin making monthly settlement extension payments
to the seller, as provided for in the contract, thus advancing the
contract’s intended settlement date to the last day of the month
associated with the buyer’s settlement extension payment. Id. ¶ 6.
While the contract provided terms to extend the settlement date,
it failed to specify a final date regarding the ultimate settlement
of the contract or to define the maximum number of settlement
extensions available to the parties. Id. ¶ 5. After numerous
settlement extensions, the seller sought to terminate the contract.
Id. ¶¶ 8–9. Following a summary judgment hearing, the district
court determined that the contract entitled the buyer to extend the
settlement deadline indefinitely, “so long as valid tender of the
extension payment was made.” Id. ¶ 12 (quotation simplified).

¶23 On appeal, we held, in relevant part, that because the
contract did “not limit the number of extension payments,” it did
“not provide a date by which [seller] must perform its core
obligation to complete the purchase of the Property.” Id. ¶ 34.
Accordingly, we noted “that if a contract fails to specify a time of
performance the law implies that it shall be done within a
reasonable time under the circumstances.” Id. ¶ 32 (quotation
simplified). And we concluded that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment that countenanced an indefinite
extension of the time for performance. Id. ¶¶ 29, 32.

¶24 Similar to the seller in New York Avenue, Christopher is
concerned that if we conclude that the reasonable-time rule does
not apply to section 9(B) of the decree, there exists a possibility
that Rhonda could opt to never sell the property and thereby
retain all of the equity indefinitely. In reviewing the conclusions
of the court, we must evaluate the plain language of section 9(B)

 20220090-CA                    11                 2024 UT App 6
                            Holt v. Holt

of the decree to determine if the district court correctly held that
the reasonable-time rule did not apply.

¶25 Based on the plain language of section 9(B), it is obvious
that nowhere in its four sentences is there any provision regarding
a specific date by which Rhonda must sell the property. Rhonda
argues on appeal that it would be improper for the court to
impose a reasonable time for performance because, unlike the
contract at issue in New York Avenue, section 9(B) did not intend
to “create an obligation” for the sale of the property. She further
contends that sale of the property is a condition precedent, and
thus, she is not required to sell the property but that if she does,
Christopher would then be entitled to receive his share of the
equity. We are not persuaded by Rhonda’s argument. The intent
of the decree was to “resolve all issues between” the parties.
Therefore, while section 9(B) was not intended to be a sales
agreement, it was also not intended to allow Rhonda to
indefinitely prevent the satisfaction of Christopher’s interest. See
Brady v. Park, 2019 UT 16, ¶ 53, 445 P.3d 395 (“When we interpret
a contract we first look at the plain language of the contract to
determine the parties’ meaning and intent.”) (quotation
simplified). Accordingly, we agree with Christopher that a
reasonable time for performance should be implied. Thus, we
conclude that the district court incorrectly determined that the
reasonable-time rule was inapplicable here. We next determine
what the reasonable time should be, and here we part ways with
Christopher and endorse the view adopted by the commissioner.

¶26 Due to the nature of these proceedings and Christopher’s
decision not to request transcripts of the prior hearings, we are
unable to consider the parties’ presentations before the
commissioner or the district court, including not only the
arguments they made but also any evidence they introduced or
evidentiary proffers they made. Even so, Christopher contends
that “[a] reasonable time is defined by the parties’ intentions at
the time the contract is formed, not when the dispute arises,” and

 20220090-CA                    12                 2024 UT App 6
                            Holt v. Holt

that because the parties did not intend for his interest to remain
unsatisfied this long, a reasonable time has long since elapsed.
Conversely, Rhonda contends that “[t]he language of the Decree
demonstrates that the Parties intended for [her] to be able to
operate her business from the Property to support herself
indefinitely.”

¶27 In consideration of what constitutes a reasonable time
under the circumstances, we must discern the parties’ intentions
from the language of their contract—the stipulated decree—and
the relevant circumstances, but in the absence of whatever
evidence might have been adduced or proffered at the hearings as
we have not been favored with the transcripts. We are mindful
that neither party was awarded alimony in this case, meaning
Rhonda’s livelihood depended on her continued ability to operate
her salon business. And it is significant that not only was no time
for Rhonda‘s performance specified, but it was emphasized that
Christopher shall be entitled to his equity only “when the
property is sold.” The conclusion is inescapable, as determined by
the commissioner, that the intention of the parties, as reflected in
the language they employed, was that Rhonda’s obligation to sell
the property and cash out Christopher would be triggered when
she ceased to operate the salon business. That occurrence would
equate to the reasonable time for her performance under the
unique circumstances of this case.

                II. Scope of District Court Review

¶28 Christopher next challenges the district court’s expansive
consideration of the commissioner’s recommendation, arguing
that the court “exceeded the scope” of his objection by addressing
“matters not before the court.” We disagree with Christopher’s
position. A plain reading of rule 108(f) of the Utah Rules of Civil
Procedure requires the district court to make “independent
findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence.”
And our jurisprudence makes clear that a district court has

 20220090-CA                    13                 2024 UT App 6
                          Holt v. Holt

plenary responsibility for “what is essentially its own order.”
Somer v. Somer, 2020 UT App 93, ¶ 12, 467 P.3d 924 (quotation
simplified). Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not
exceed the scope of its authority in reviewing the commissioner’s
recommendation without being confined to the contours of the
objection made by Christopher.

¶29 “We interpret court rules, like statutes and administrative
rules, according to their plain language.” Day v. Barnes, 2018 UT
App 143, ¶ 12, 427 P.3d 1272 (quotation simplified). Rule 108
provides a procedure by which a party may object to a
commissioner’s recommendation and request that the district
court review the recommendation. Within this framework,
subsection (a) first indicates that a commissioner’s
recommendation “is the order of the court until modified by the
court” and that “[a] party may file a written objection to the
recommendation.” Utah R. Civ. P. 108(a) (emphasis added). Next,
subsection (b) explains that any objection “must identify
succinctly and with particularity the findings of fact, the
conclusions of law, or the part of the recommendation to which
the objection is made and state the relief sought,” and it also
provides that the accompanying memorandum of support “must
explain succinctly and with particularity why the findings,
conclusions, or recommendation are incorrect.” Id. R. 108(b).
Lastly, subsection (f) directs that “[t]he judge will make
independent findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the
evidence, whether by proffer, testimony or exhibit, presented to
the judge, or, if there was no hearing before the judge, based on
the evidence presented to the commissioner.” Id. R. 108(f)
(emphasis added). Thus, the plain language of the rule “does not
provide for an appeal-like review of a commissioner’s decision,
but instead requires independent findings of fact and conclusions
of law based on the evidence.” Day, 2018 UT App 143, ¶ 16
(quotation simplified).

 20220090-CA                   14                2024 UT App 6
                            Holt v. Holt

¶30 In the case at hand, after the commissioner made his
recommendation, Christopher filed an objection wherein he
explained that while the commissioner “correctly found” that the
reasonable-time rule applied to section 9(B) of the decree, he erred
because the recommendation was not based on evidence that, at
the time the decree was entered, the parties intended that Rhonda
would “retain the Property and all equity so long as she operated
a business.” After a hearing on Christopher’s objection, the court
modified the recommended order based on its independent
determination that it would be “inappropriate” to apply the
reasonable-time rule and “to impose a date by which the Property
must be sold.” Christopher now argues that the court’s decision
to modify the recommendation concerning the reasonable-time
rule “exceeded the scope” of his objection because, as the
objecting party, he “was entitled to define the scope of his
objection, and he did so narrowly.”

¶31 We reject this argument. As just explained, when faced
with an objection to a commissioner’s recommendation, the
responsible district court judge is expected to make “independent
findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the evidence.”
Utah R. Civ. P. 108(f) (emphasis added). We have previously
explained that because a commissioner’s recommendation is “the
order of the district court until modified by that court,” “it would
make little sense that the district court would be limited in
reviewing what is essentially its own order.” Day, 2018 UT App
143, ¶ 18 (quotation simplified). Therefore, while rule 108
provides that the objecting party must proceed with
“particularity” concerning the basis of the objection, Utah R. Civ.
P. 108(b), that same particularity does not circumscribe the
authority of the reviewing court and does not limit the reviewing
court’s ability to make its own findings and conclusions, see id. R.
108(f). Thus, notwithstanding Christopher’s “narrowly” defined
objection, the court’s modification of the commissioner’s
recommendation did not exceed the appropriate scope of review

 20220090-CA                    15                 2024 UT App 6
                          Holt v. Holt

in a procedural sense, even though we conclude that the court’s
substantive conclusion was incorrect.

                        CONCLUSION

¶32 The district court erred because the reasonable-time rule
should have been applied in this case, and the reasonable time to
be imputed is essentially the time as determined by the
commissioner, namely when Rhonda ceases operating her salon
on the property. We remand so the court can adjust its order
accordingly. At the same time, we conclude that the court did not
exceed the scope of its review authority under rule 108.

 20220090-CA                   16                2024 UT App 6